Here are WSPP Comments & Questions I sent to the Public Works Dept on 6/30/2006. Hopefully, most of these will have answers developed for the upcoming August 15 meeting referred to in my previous posting. I know the jargon, extensive references to a large, obscure document and the sheer number of questions will not be easy reading for most people. But for some, it will represent exacly the type of oversight they expect from elected officials, especially on an important matter like watershed protection. I'm putting these questions out there anyway, with apologies to those who would rather read something else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are comments referenced to specific sections & pages of the printed 2000 WSPP document. These need special emphasis when the 2006 update is drafted for submission to the State Dept of Health. This should not be considered a routine administrative task! It has broad policy implications that City Council rightfully needs to consider and approve.
There are major updates required to this document to reflect both accomplishments and new trend data. More important are the broad implications to be derived from current knowledge, activities underway and additional actions required to actually achieve the stated goals of the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program.
The following general comments [in no particular order] that are –or should be – addressed in this WSSP:
1. The WSPP document was jointly submitted by COB & WD10. These organizations have vastly different Charters, objectives and organizational structures. COB is a Strong Mayor/ Weak Council form of Govt, wherein the Executive has significant operational authority, providing policy direction and funding is approved by Council. The Water District has a much different, single mission focused on its system service requirements within its district boundaries and budget balancing. The GM needs approval from the Commissioners before taking other than routine action. The problem comes from both the different perspectives and funding the 2 organizations inherently have. It is essentially a David & Goliath relationship, where WD10 [and WC] has effective veto power over actions that might benefit watershed protection that fall outside City jurisdiction. Perhaps a Gulliver & Lilliputian analogy would be more appropriate, but the point is made. Regarding this WSPP, both WD10 and the County had the opportunity to review, revise and weaken the plan the City paid for! This, without any City Council review! What is wrong with this picture? At a minimum the City Council needs to review the update before it is submitted!
2. From the data submitted, it is obvious that COB is paying the great majority of the costs for monitoring this water supply. This appropriate because COB is by far the largest purveyor of water and sewer services. But, at some point, is it OK for COB to be responsible for determining what problems are causing water supply degradation, and then have to pay to fix them? Both WD10 & WC have been externalizing these responsibilities to COB, and this must stop!
3. This update is a major undertaking! Are we prepared to do it correctly? Why is it already a year late? Much has happened in the last 6 years and more is known now than before.
4. Input from Whatcom County appears to be extensive. Will this be developed for review and inclusion in a timely fashion? Is there any sense of obligation or urgency? How can we get this to happen?
5. What has happened to the Lake Whatcom Management Program Review meetings? These seem to have become afterthoughts! Why don’t the executives see this as an important aspect of their responsibilities? It would be good to set these meetings early and stick to the dates!
6. DOE’s 303(d) listing allows 15 years to mitigate. It has now been 8 years, and no TMDL or Model yet! Even before these tools are ready, we need action toward meaningful results!
7. Re Watershed Property Acquisition, more funding is needed from both COB and Whatcom County. Public ownership and careful management are the best BMPs known!
8. Whatcom County & COB need to look very carefully at Recreation uses in and around Lake Whatcom, and insure passive uses predominate! What kind of message are we sending to the public when we fail to respect so valuable a resource? Other jurisdictions generally prohibit any such uses as standard practice.
9. New focus needs to be on interpreting results and taking actions likely to produce favorable results. Focus to date has been on data collection, planning to plan and watching more development and degradation happen! If this is really a hot issue, why not pursue real progress?
10. It would be of great interest to review the comments and changes made by WD10 & Whatcom County to the initial WSPP submitted in 2000. Are these available for examination? Will it require an Public Information Request to make this happen?
11. From the Introduction, comes this overall perspective:
Preventing drinking water contamination at the source makes sense:
• good public health sense;
• good economic sense; and
• good environmental sense.
Section 1 – Background & Description
• needs updating for water use, post G-P & diversion
• What are implications of increasing impervious surface coverage in watershed?
• Lake is a glacial depression, incapable of flushing itself.
• Note mass-wasting hazard from forest harvesting is minimized by vegetative cover
• Austin & Smith Creeks are largest tributaries + Anderson [diversion]
?? How will DNR mass-wasting hazards compare with proposed County land swap/reconveyance? Are county uses/practices likely to be any more protective than DNR? See figure 1.3.3-2 on p 1-19:
p 1-23: critical source protection areas
immediate
cumulative
Fig 1.5.1-1: WD10 wells in Agate Bay area? What is planned use/expansion?
P 1-27: jurisdictional boundaries – adjust for acquisitions
• what would be advantage of COB annexing WD7’s area?
P 1-29: Whatcom County land use needs update. Note that Rural Forestry rezones continuously allow roads and sprawl development on 20 acre lots.
Fig 1.6.2-2: WC Title 20 zoning & UGAs – note land acquisition location priorities. Commercial Forestry [CF] allows roads, no houses, outside WD’s [>40 acres]
P 1-32: needs updating
P 1-34: COB zoning – Basin 1; Fig 1.6.2-3 needs update for parks, acquisitions
p 1-38: Water Quality Monitoring; need column to show $ per year! For COB costs [note COB also pays for IWS work]
p 1-42: 1993 Comp Water Plan – by Barrett Consulting
Section 2 – ID of activities detrimental to water quality.
• need update of Lake Whatcom Watershed to show current zoning
p 2-1: modify to eliminate G-P use [explain reference to residential ?]
p 2-2: update potential build-out tables
p 2-3: 10% impervious should be maximum!
Fig 2.1.1-1: does not bode well for lake, especially basin 2!
**P 2-9: DOH designated Lake as “severe public health hazard”
Need to ban any more OSS?
Fig 2.1.4-1: OSS sites; don’t allow more; require sewer hook-ups where close by; buy TDRs from remainder
P 2-11: forestry is 67% or 20,798 acres of watershed; 3,000 acres = Rural; 18,000 acres = commercial. Need to prohibit any further use of RF zoning for homes! Relate this to land acquisition program. Update areas to current conditions.
P 2-11: mass-wasting is mostly from catastrophic events, slides, etc. DNR practices are better than private forest rules, but all forestry has some deleterious impact. Is this the intent of the County’s proposed re-conveyance plan? If so, why not focus on private land, not DNR?
P 2-13: bulk chemical spill hazard is obvious, especially off LW Blvd.
P 2-14: alluvial fan hazards- assumes additional floods/slides will preferentially impact these areas? eg Sudden Valley, etc.
**P 2-15: if only mitigation is appropriate zoning, then do it & enforce it!
P 2-15: diversion prior to 1998 was > 25% during summer. Better flushing than we can expect post G-P. earlier flushing inadequate to completely mask degradation, merely delaying it longer.
Explain hydropower plant impact on diversion flow further. Does this constrict COB operations?
P 2-15/16: Note joint planning with WD10 since 1974. Are they still in denial a problem exists and it is their responsibility to help fix it? If COB’s greatest concern is water degradation, what else can we do to prevent it?
P 2-16: if diversion water has < nutrients, could diversion water enter the lake closer to basin 2, especially during summer? Would this cost be cheaper than extending COB intake?
Fish hatcheries impacts; any unnecessary wastes being dumped into lake?
Passing reference to pathogens giardia and cryptosporidium; treating takes care of giardia, but not crypto?
Fig 2.1.8-1: fish species and habitat; concentrate on preserving natural spawning areas.
P 2-18: mining for sand, gravel [and coal] should be permanently terminated as inappropriate use
P 2-21: road use chart needs updating; future road maximum needs determining and ensured.
P 2-23: LW Connector – please delete all reference to this in future. Only developers [and potential Trillium rezone] could benefit! Note that 32% of roads are gravel forest service roads, yet these contribute 50% of sediment. Stop doing this! Also stop allowing more private roads that ‘daisy chain’ development!
P 2-23: Hydro-power requires reduction in middle fork flow from 90 to 66 cfs to produce 1000 kw. Is this worth it at PW current practice? It is green energy, but reduces operational flexibility for LW. Its moment in history may be over.
P 2-24: recreation is cited as a ‘popular’ use by 71% of those surveyed. Are we to be guided by what is popular, or what is best practice? What are appropriate recreational uses and where should they be located? Are these active or passive uses? Do they require hauling boats over local roads from anywhere? Who is to regulate this activity? Who will keep track of statistics, collect fees and enforce laws? County has 5 parks; how will these be developed and used? Some uses [marine & floatplanes] should be curtailed or eliminated for the general good of the community and ratepayers. New parks development will bring more roads, parking and people which exacerbates existing problems!
P 2-25: ORV/off-trail vehicles are a problem that demonstrably degrades watershed. Need to be careful! Trend is toward more urbanization and less natural areas – bad ideas, both of them.
P 2-28: prioritization of adverse activities & rating system. This is the meat of this exercise, yet only methodology is discussed –maybe more later?
Section 3 – Watershed management & Control measures.
P 3-1: how local jurisdictions monitor & control activities to minimize adverse source water impacts.
P 3.1 thru 3.5: details existing measures [are they working?]
• Land use & ownership are challenging! No surprise.
Public ownership is 47.5% + 4.4% = 51.9%
• Cites failed TIG effort; ‘currently no plans to purchase property’ needs update!
• cites Sudden Valley’s Gordian Knot of covenants; can’t limit access to lake, even at water intakes!
P 3-2: agreement: COB & WD10 –increases sewage volume to COB
• 2 agreements: WC & COB
UGA annexation ‘coordination’
Septic system survey
• agreement: COB & DNR [14,300 acres] 1985 – encourages public ownership!
• agreement: COB & WD7: 1703 acres
p 3-3: water & sewer outside COB limits; COB stipulates to protect
• SVCA ACC Guidelines -35% max lot coverage
• SVCA density reduction program [reduces by 1400 lots]
**p 3-4: cites WD10 settlement with CWA regarding 241 & 91 lots
NOTE COB bought these properties with Watershed Acquisition $!
[Chen & Denke]
• ‘informal agreements’ COB & Agencies - pesticides
• WD10/WC bought SV lots at tax auction [so did COB]
• cites CWA suit settlement $220 K
p 3-5: notes Lake Whatcom is a ‘hot’ political issue! Imagine that!
• COB prohibitions are pre Silver Beach Ordinance
P 3.6: touts Lake Whatcom Management Program as ‘unique advantage’.
Is this conceptual or actual? Show results! Talk is cheap. The best sounding idea may not be enough to do the job. Where are results?
P 3.7: effectiveness of existing controls
• COB enforcement weak; others?
• WD10 ‘empowered’ by 3 RCWs; these aren’t effective unless WD actually uses this enabling to advocate protection with WC!
• 80% Rule limits extent of zoned area to be developed.
Why not a lower %? What does this translate to in # of DUs?
P 3.8: recommended strategies
• WC Title 20; need update of current zoning and its potential build-out. Are there areas that could be further restricted? Acquired? Which ones?
P 3.9: reviews of anticipated monitoring & outlines future updates of WSPP.
• TDR program; is it working? Why not?
P 3-10: WC Storm water management; extremely weak!
• Land clearing; extremely weak! Needs update
p 3-11: GMA compliance with Comp Plan? What about UGAs?
**P 3-12/13: downzones; ‘options’ which were adopted? needs update
• Timber mgmt - Forest Practices Act; DNR has oversight in watershed- needs update!
p 3-13: ‘harvest prescriptions’ – means potential mass-wasting -or clear-cutting for the layperson
p 3-14: stormwater facilities – only COB [needs update to show new SSWU rates * program
P 3-15: WD10 Interceptor & overflow problems it was meant to correct. Will it just create more?
P 3-16: WC stormwater – where’s the results, except for those facilities that are privately owned and operated? If non-structural BMPs are used, this minimizes need for built facilities!
• Are OSS rules still voluntary? Is Lake Whatcom any different from countywide?
**P 3-17: are there really no restrictions on hazardous materials transport?
• LUST [Leaking Underground Storage Tanks] enforcement weak due to staffing. Is this being corrected?
** • Joint COB/WD10.WC effort on stormwater management- Phase 1, EES & ENTRANCO Report exceptionally weak! Has been discredited. More delays!
P 3-18: disposal of toxics: initiated by COB, now being operated by WC
• OSS interlocal – entirely paid by COB [$73.5 K per year]? 689 sites ID’ed in 2000.
**• Because of Moratorium, WD10 won’t object to OSS being used, if ‘no protest agreement’ is signed to connect to sewer later!
**P 3-19: Because COB would not accept add’l sewage, WC HHS had no choice but to approve OSS!
• State & Federal efforts; local control mechanism enables these agencies to help. Otherwise wait until emergency!
• DOE 303(d) listing [1999] for Oxygen depletion, triggers TMDL – within 15 years!
• DNR’s HCP excludes private forests lands. What covers them? WC must keep these in perpetual forestry!
• Bill 5536 LW Landscape Plan – a long, unsatisfactory result
P 3-20: no timber sale until pilot project completed [3+ years] defied state legislature!
**• WRIA – locally plan & implement! Where are results? What is plan? Is this defunct? Where are teeth?
P 3-21: public education – joint effort, list of tasks. Weak. Where are results?
**• COB has ‘tremendous commitment’. What are results & costs?
P 3-23: WD10 – nil! WC – OSS, otherwise nil! Needs update
P 3-24: DOE – COB 7 FTEs for Pledge Program, a voluntary effort
**• Local watershed control committee; Lake Whatcom Management Program adopted by 1992 Joint Resolution. This ID’ed 8 areas of focus, deferred 3 [Land Use, Stormwater, OSS] the important ones!
Instead, worked on Forest Practices, Spill Response, Conservation, Education, Data Management.
P 3-25: 1998 formalized Interlocal Agreement @ $375 K per year
• adopted Interlocal Agreement & published list of ‘accomplishments’
** p 3-29: Tabulated List of Existing Control Strategies & Ratings of their effectiveness. Note: these exclude laws, such as ESA, CWA, CAA, Federal WPCA, pesticide regs.
• Several Fold-out Spreadsheets list the above, with implementing agencies shown. Preponderance of work to be done by COB!
**P 3-30: Public ownership; DNR should keep forests; other avenues need exploring. Update for COB watershed Acquisitions
**• Restrict COB sewage amounts
p 3-31: Add COB; bought Chen & Denke [91 + 241 TDRs]; helped buy SV lots.
P 3-32: List COB actions! [Silver Beach Ord; SSWU; CAO; Land Acquisition; Narrow Street standards]
P 3-34: GMA; Landscape Plan; Land Acqusition –Private Forestry; fenced Anderson Creek; etc]
P 3-35: COB is doing its part!
P 3-36: COB is doing its part!
P 3-37: COB is doing its part & more! [BTV10, etc]
• Cop out! Legislative bodies have other things to do! Both COB & WC have Executive/Council forms of Govt. Neither Council had any input into this WSPP! This does need to change! [WD10 Commissioners had input!]
p 3-38: Recommended Control Strategies: COB & WD10 have limited abilities!?? Yes, because County has jurisdiction over most of it, and they need to do things too!
• ‘Water Purveyor Perspective’ 5,000 DU’s now + ???? more to come!
Potential for 7331 add’l DU’s, for total of 16,500 people! Update this!
• Residential paragraph – doubtful of effectiveness
• Commercial – only WC has the zoning stick!
P 3-39: Reaffirm that WC has responsibility!
**• Recreation plans need review for compatibility – encourage passive uses!
P 3-40: Recommended control policies currently being pursued
• all old news!
• what specifically has WD10 done? $?
• monitoring & assessing toxics; who does this, COB? $?
• Modeling Lake Whatcom; DOE has ever-elongated time frames – 6 ears later this still is not ready for use as a management tool. [16 years is allowed]
p 3-41: Plans for monitoring & updates; where are the ‘plans, procedures & schedules’?
• began discussions in 1990; in 1998 set up annual review, focus is on 1 year ahead?
P 3-42: WSPP update
• where is info between 2000 & 2005? Are we serious about meeting deadline with meaningful update?
• 2005 1st 6 months –COB & WD10 are to consolidate information –has this begun?
• 2005 last 6 months –weekly progress meetings –has this happened?
• Final Draft is to be submitted to the Lake Whatcom management Committee for THEIR approval – never goes to City Council? Why?
• Approved Draft plan to be submitted to State Dept of Health by Jan 1, 2006. Has this happened? If not, why not?
Section 4 – Monitoring Programs
P 4-1: Most monitoring by COB & WWU - $? Per year?
• some by WD10; DFW; DOE - $? Per year?
• routine tests - $? Per year?
• Water quality parameters tested – Table 4.1.2-1 – are these adequate, or just the minimum required?
P 4-2: Stormwater run-off monitoring – extent & who pays? Adequate?
P 4-3: Special monitoring; analysis of trends – what are major findings? Implications? What actions does this suggest? Where is expert interpretation? E.g. don’t correlations between giardia, cryptosporidium & fecal coliforms tell us something? Does treatment kill crypto? What are near-shore implications for swimming and other direct water contact recreation?
P 4-10: Oxygen depletion conditions; why are two different perspectives given? This seems a continuation of the dueling scientists that clearly showed basic disagreement between COB & WD10 during the discredited ENTRANCO Report. Does WD10 get to veto COB concerns?
P 4-11: Phosporus; again, why are two different perspectives given? This also seems a continuation of the dueling scientists that clearly showed basic disagreement between COB & WD10 during the discredited ENTRANCO Report. Does WD10 get to veto COB concerns? What about WC? Didn’t the Joint Council agree 2 years ago that Phosphorus was a top priority? This need serious updating of agreed policy!
P 4-11: Austin Creek; 58% of samples exceed fecal limits! What’s wrong with this picture? Can this ever get bad enough for WD10 to actually do something?
P 4-13: WWU monitoring; why are we even bothering to do this if we’re not willing to be guided by the trends? What happened to our agreed policy of prevention over cleaning up a bad mess? Are our laws so weak that we are stymied? Do we have the political will? Is ignorance by decision makers still an excuse? When will the situation be bad enough to force strong action? Seriously, we need more than just retreating lines in the shifting sand!
P 4-14: Near-shore; Bloedel-Donovan has high fecal & enterococcus counts. What implications does this have for continuing to have children swimming here? What about boats, cars & trailers? It will take more than a few life guards to fix this problem!
P 4-16: after storm events – high fecal, phosphorus & nitrogen concentrations. Summary says it very succinctly. Needs current update, especially for Basin 3. Identifies streams & constructed stormwater facilities as main problems!
P 4-17/18/19: Recommended Monitoring Improvements –Important!
• Hydrologic Model –Long Term predictive tool –when?
• Nutrient Transport Model [TMDL] – when? Why not set interim limits as adaptive management tool?
• Determine if P or N limited; why not control for both?
• Additional Sampling; to test validity? Will there ever be a time when more data is not needed? This paralysis by analysis is understandable, but not helpful in slowing or stopping or reversing negative trends!
• Additional Monitoring parameters; same comment as above. It’s good to improve tools, but don’t let ‘better’ get in the way of doing ‘good idea for until we know more’!
• Circulation Model; good idea, but why not just test for the existing conditions?
• Monitor BMPs for stormwater facilities; always good to monitor for results, but we already know which BMPs are likely to work best!
• Identify sources of pathogens; good idea! Hint, its mostly humans!
• Evaluate Y-Road landfill; isn’t this done? Has any mitigation resulted?
• DOE Toxics study follow up. Good idea, but not reason to delay action!
• Additional weather stations & gauges; necessary for proper data gathering to support Model(s) - isn’t this completed?
Section 5 – System Operation
• Mostly info that describes basics; could benefit from a narrative of how system could be reconfigured for better treatment results, including OOM cost estimates.
Section 6 – Appendices
Very information collection of existing policy, Interlocal Agreements, Ordinances & Operating procedures that give the foundation for why things are as they are.
• ORD 7775: Public Water Supply –to DOH in 1969
• Water Quality Report for 2000
• Staff Ranking Factors, developed to weight ‘Adverse Activities’ in Table 2.2-1
• Interlocal Agreement; COB/WC/WD10 [9/9/98] - Joint Lake Whatcom Management Program
• Interlocal Agreement; COB/WC [12/19/97] - Annexation – Very problematic! Among other things, this says COB adopts the Countywide Planning Policies. This was specifically rejected by COB in its recent Comp Plan!
• Interlocal Agreement; - Septic Systems [undated] – Dr Frank James
• Agreement; DNR & COB [3/5/85] – Forest management
• Interlocal Agreement; COB & WD7 [4/13/93] -
• Lake Whatcom RESERVOIR Management Program – 2000 [printed brochure with tasks listed in some detail]
• COB Public Works Data & Operating procedure
====================END===========================
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Water Source Protection Plan: Shelf Art or Management Tool?
The City of Bellingham was required by the Washington State Department of Health [DOH] to prepare a Water Source Protection Plan to help protect Lake Whatcom. This task was completed and issued -administratively- in April, 2000, and requires updating every six years thereafter. The City Council was never asked to review or adopt this Water Source Protection Plan, even though its preparation cost tens of thousands of dollars and required many hours of staff time. But, before the final draft was issued, both Whatcom County and Water District 10 were allowed to review this document, and delete sections they did not want in it! What is wrong with that picture? The City does the work on its nickel, allows other jurisdictions to gut the parts they don't like, and the document is simply issued - without City Council review or approval!
I believe this is a matter that the Council -and citizens- should be concerned about, because the WSPP represents a health mandated chance to set policy on a resource that has been one of the City's top priorities! The document that was issued does contain much valuable information that is useful, but the City missed out on having a much stronger WSPP that could also become a policy statement.
So, what happened in 2006, when the Water Source Protection Plan was scheduled for its six-year revision? Nothing. Not even the review and revision that the original plan clearly stated was to be accomplished! That time the Council caught it, and advised the administration that a full review and revision was expected. Next Wednesday, August 15, the Council will hold a special evening work session [6 to 8 PM] at which the Public Works Dept will present its proposed new WSPP. Since there has been no advance distribution of information for Council or public review, it is impossible to know what the PW preentation will entail. Perhaps, all will be revealed that was missing from the first Water Source Protection Plan, but that is doubtful.
Now, six years later -almost seven- we do know that our water quality situation has gotten worse, because of unprecedented new development that has happened over that time. If we could go back in time and establish the Water Source Protection Plan we needed then, would it have made any difference? Maybe not, but at least we would have had a chance!
Stay tuned to see the next exciting episode. Will we set a limit on impervious cover in the Lake Whatcom watershed? If so, will we enforce it?
-------------------------------------------------------
Here is a Herald Guest Column from March 9, 2002, entitled 'A Guide to Lake Whatcom Management ' which remains a potentially important tool to help us understand the causes of water degradation and how to set limits on them:
A recent publication from the Center for Watershed Protection [Watershed Protection Techniques, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 2001, pages 797-812] offers some timely and helpful advice for those concerned with protecting public water supplies. The referenced article reviews the current state of watershed practice in reservoirs, including some unique concerns facing reservoir managers, and summarizes a detailed survey of trends in watershed treatment practices used to protect 22 large water supply reservoirs in the U.S. - including our own Lake Whatcom. It concludes by recommending ways that watershed practices can be improved to meet ever-tighter drinking water standards, including the use of a Source Water Assessment Program to better integrate them into local watershed planning.
Impacts from watershed development on surface water supplies are a major concern, contributing heavily to such problems as: disinfection by-products; turbidity; pathogens (such as crytosporidium, giardia, and fecal coliforms); organic and inorganic chemicals (nutrients, pesticides, metals) and algae (which influences the taste and odor of drinking water). All of these impacts increase both treatment costs and the likelihood of public health alerts. Urban development also increases the risk of spills, leaks and accidents happening in the reservoir or its surrounding watershed.
What can be done to prevent these problems? Under the Safe Drinking Water Act - 1996 Amendments, each community must conduct a Source Water Assessment Program and use it to implement a Source Water Protection Plan. The survey results given are also helpful in comparing the effectiveness of various practices used in other reservoirs. For example, most localities rely upon a progressively stringent series of ordinances, regulations and zoning actions adopted over several decades, yet only 10 percent have instituted comprehensive watershed planning. This serious deficiency is attributed partly to the difficulty in coordinating planning efforts among multiple jurisdictions, and partly because of the historical disconnect between the water utilities responsible for meeting drinking water standards and the local government(s) responsible for regulating land-use change in the watershed.
The primary tools used in watershed planning and management are zoning, land conservation, shoreline/stream buffers and stewardship, with the latter encompassing education, spill response, monitoring and reservoir restrictions (90 percent prohibit swimming and use of gasoline engines).
Given the fact that water supplies have traditionally been heavily regulated due to public health concerns and increasingly stringent drinking water standards, it is surprising that only 10 percent of the reservoir watersheds studied have developed comprehensive watershed plans. Even more surprising is the finding that, despite anticipated future development in many watersheds, none have established a maximum upper limit on future development - the single worst enemy of watershed protection.
Other, typical watershed problems include concerns over long-term maintenance of storm water practices, septic systems and buffers, as well as failures in actually implementing practices in the field. The cumulative impact of inadequate staffing, waivers, infrequent inspections, poor design standards and limited enforcement all compromise the overall effectiveness of such programs, as does the lack of actual performance data.
While state and federal regulators clearly endorse a watershed approach for developing SWPPs, promoting stakeholder involvement and encouraging intergovernmental partnerships, they do not mandate that the cumulative impact of current or future watershed development be explicitly considered in the planning process. As a consequence, it is unlikely that many water providers will be able to develop fully effective watershed land-use plans, because both providers and regulators are reluctant to interfere with the land-use prerogatives of local governments.
Two specific recommendations are offered:
• Each SWAP should measure current watershed impervious cover, and forecast the amount of new impervious cover to be created over the next 20 to 30 years. If current or future impervious cover is expected to exceed 5 percent in the watershed, communities should adopt more stringent treatment practices for new development.
• If impervious cover is expected to exceed 10 percent in a watershed, then nine critical elements need inclusion in the SWPP: Watershed planning and management, watershed zoning, land conservation, shoreline and tributary buffers, better site design, erosion and sediment control, storm water treatment practices, wastewater management and watershed stewardship.
The referenced publication can be ordered online at www.cwp.org. Summaries are available at the City Council office.
I believe this is a matter that the Council -and citizens- should be concerned about, because the WSPP represents a health mandated chance to set policy on a resource that has been one of the City's top priorities! The document that was issued does contain much valuable information that is useful, but the City missed out on having a much stronger WSPP that could also become a policy statement.
So, what happened in 2006, when the Water Source Protection Plan was scheduled for its six-year revision? Nothing. Not even the review and revision that the original plan clearly stated was to be accomplished! That time the Council caught it, and advised the administration that a full review and revision was expected. Next Wednesday, August 15, the Council will hold a special evening work session [6 to 8 PM] at which the Public Works Dept will present its proposed new WSPP. Since there has been no advance distribution of information for Council or public review, it is impossible to know what the PW preentation will entail. Perhaps, all will be revealed that was missing from the first Water Source Protection Plan, but that is doubtful.
Now, six years later -almost seven- we do know that our water quality situation has gotten worse, because of unprecedented new development that has happened over that time. If we could go back in time and establish the Water Source Protection Plan we needed then, would it have made any difference? Maybe not, but at least we would have had a chance!
Stay tuned to see the next exciting episode. Will we set a limit on impervious cover in the Lake Whatcom watershed? If so, will we enforce it?
-------------------------------------------------------
Here is a Herald Guest Column from March 9, 2002, entitled 'A Guide to Lake Whatcom Management ' which remains a potentially important tool to help us understand the causes of water degradation and how to set limits on them:
A recent publication from the Center for Watershed Protection [Watershed Protection Techniques, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 2001, pages 797-812] offers some timely and helpful advice for those concerned with protecting public water supplies. The referenced article reviews the current state of watershed practice in reservoirs, including some unique concerns facing reservoir managers, and summarizes a detailed survey of trends in watershed treatment practices used to protect 22 large water supply reservoirs in the U.S. - including our own Lake Whatcom. It concludes by recommending ways that watershed practices can be improved to meet ever-tighter drinking water standards, including the use of a Source Water Assessment Program to better integrate them into local watershed planning.
Impacts from watershed development on surface water supplies are a major concern, contributing heavily to such problems as: disinfection by-products; turbidity; pathogens (such as crytosporidium, giardia, and fecal coliforms); organic and inorganic chemicals (nutrients, pesticides, metals) and algae (which influences the taste and odor of drinking water). All of these impacts increase both treatment costs and the likelihood of public health alerts. Urban development also increases the risk of spills, leaks and accidents happening in the reservoir or its surrounding watershed.
What can be done to prevent these problems? Under the Safe Drinking Water Act - 1996 Amendments, each community must conduct a Source Water Assessment Program and use it to implement a Source Water Protection Plan. The survey results given are also helpful in comparing the effectiveness of various practices used in other reservoirs. For example, most localities rely upon a progressively stringent series of ordinances, regulations and zoning actions adopted over several decades, yet only 10 percent have instituted comprehensive watershed planning. This serious deficiency is attributed partly to the difficulty in coordinating planning efforts among multiple jurisdictions, and partly because of the historical disconnect between the water utilities responsible for meeting drinking water standards and the local government(s) responsible for regulating land-use change in the watershed.
The primary tools used in watershed planning and management are zoning, land conservation, shoreline/stream buffers and stewardship, with the latter encompassing education, spill response, monitoring and reservoir restrictions (90 percent prohibit swimming and use of gasoline engines).
Given the fact that water supplies have traditionally been heavily regulated due to public health concerns and increasingly stringent drinking water standards, it is surprising that only 10 percent of the reservoir watersheds studied have developed comprehensive watershed plans. Even more surprising is the finding that, despite anticipated future development in many watersheds, none have established a maximum upper limit on future development - the single worst enemy of watershed protection.
Other, typical watershed problems include concerns over long-term maintenance of storm water practices, septic systems and buffers, as well as failures in actually implementing practices in the field. The cumulative impact of inadequate staffing, waivers, infrequent inspections, poor design standards and limited enforcement all compromise the overall effectiveness of such programs, as does the lack of actual performance data.
While state and federal regulators clearly endorse a watershed approach for developing SWPPs, promoting stakeholder involvement and encouraging intergovernmental partnerships, they do not mandate that the cumulative impact of current or future watershed development be explicitly considered in the planning process. As a consequence, it is unlikely that many water providers will be able to develop fully effective watershed land-use plans, because both providers and regulators are reluctant to interfere with the land-use prerogatives of local governments.
Two specific recommendations are offered:
• Each SWAP should measure current watershed impervious cover, and forecast the amount of new impervious cover to be created over the next 20 to 30 years. If current or future impervious cover is expected to exceed 5 percent in the watershed, communities should adopt more stringent treatment practices for new development.
• If impervious cover is expected to exceed 10 percent in a watershed, then nine critical elements need inclusion in the SWPP: Watershed planning and management, watershed zoning, land conservation, shoreline and tributary buffers, better site design, erosion and sediment control, storm water treatment practices, wastewater management and watershed stewardship.
The referenced publication can be ordered online at www.cwp.org. Summaries are available at the City Council office.
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Feeling Smart? Test Your Watershed IQ
The quiz that follows is intended to gauge your knowledge of the urban watersheds you live in and as well as some of the impacts of stormwater pollution. Answer these thirty multiple choice questions and test YOUR watershed IQ:
(This appears on The Center For Watershed Protection’s website: http://www.cwp.org/ )
Answers are listed at the bottom.
1. A watershed is generally defined as:
a. a building that stores water
b. all the land area that drains to a given point in a water body
c. all the water area that drains to a given point in a landform
d. a moment in time when you cross into a new area
e. a new way of organizing environmental agencies
2. Percentage of Americans who can correctly answer the first question, according to national surveys.
a. 41%
b. Every red-blooded American
c. 20%
d. 69% of college educated males that stop to ask for directions
e. 0%, and we shouldn’t teach the subject in our schools
3. On average, how much land is converted to urban land use in the United States each year?
a. 500,000 acres
b. over one million acres
c. no net loss
d. 9.4 acres
e. 49,000 Walmart equivalents
4. Which of the following comprises the greatest percentage of impervious cover in suburban areas?
a. rooftops
b. lawns
c. roads, parking lots and driveways
d. vacant lots
5. Which is best watershed management unit for conducting local watershed management plans?
a. sub-basin
b. watershed
c. basin
d. subwatershed
e. catchment
6. Which is the largest watershed management unit?
a. sub-basin
b. watershed
c. basin
d. subwatershed
e. catchment
7. Which of the following pollutants are frequently found in most samples of urban stormwater runoff? (select all that apply)
a. dilithium
b. laetrile
c. total phosphorus
d. vanadium
e. copper
f. prozac
g. zinc
h. fecal coliform bacteria
8. Stream order is a technique to:
a. classify different streams based on their relative location in the
drainage network
b. stop stream disturbance by issuing a regulatory permit
c. prevent flow from running downhill
9 . When a first order stream flows into another first order stream, the resulting stream order is:
a. first order
b. second order
c. third order
d. back ordered
e. fluvial-3
10. First and second order streams comprise what percent of the total stream and river mileage of the United States?
a. 10%
b. 48%
c. 67%
d. 100%
11. How much land in a watershed is taken up by a stream buffer network that extends a distance of 100 feet from either side of the stream?
a. 15%
b. 25%
c. 5%
d. 0%, nobody is going to ever take my land
12. Recent watershed research has discovered that urban stream quality begins to sharply decline once impervious cover in a watershed exceeds:
a. 45%
b. 10%
c. 75%
d. 125%
e. 3.1414 %
13. The residential zoning category that produces the amount of impervious cover at which stream quality begin to decline is:
a. ten acre lots
b. one acre lots
c. * acre lots
d. townhouses
e. apartment buildings
14. What fraction of the total water supply on the planet is available for use by humans?
a. 0.1 percent
b. all of it
c. 25 percent
d. 48%
15. How many gallons of water fall on a one acre yard during a one inch rainfall?
a. 27,200 gallons
b. none, the rain falls only plains of Spain
c. 4 imperial gallons + one pint
d. enough to flood my basement
e. 45,000 gallons
16. How much more stormwater runoff is produced by a one acre parking lot compared to a one acre meadow?
a. 6%
b. 78%
c. no difference
d. 100%
e. 1600%
17. According to the US EPA, what percentage of river pollution is caused by urban stormwater runoff in the nation?
a. virtually none, industrial pollution is the major problem
b. virtually none, trees cause pollution
c. 21 percent
d. 99 percent
e. 11 percent
18. How many Americans can correctly identify that stormwater runoff is a common sourceof pollution of streams, rivers, and oceans?
a. 3%
b. 22%
c. 30%
d. 34%
e. every red-blooded American understands this concept
19. A single quart of motor oil dumped down a storm sewer creates an oil slick of what size?
a. no slick, sinks to bottom
b. no slick, oil travels from storm sewer to treatment plant
c. 160 square feet
d. 2 acres
e. twice the size of the Exxon Valdez
20. What percentage of the urban population of the United States relies on groundwater for its drinking water?
a. 4.8 %
b. 22%
c. 30%
d. 90%
e. 0%, everybody drinks bottled water
21. What percentage of Americans rely on septic systems to dispose of their wastewater?
a. none, we have achieved universal sanitation except in some really
rural areas
b. 16%
c. 21%
d. 25%
e. 37%
22. What percentage of Americans that own a septic system don’t know where it is located on their property.
a. every red-blooded American knows where his or her septic system is.
b. 12%
c. 2%
d. 0%
e. 67%
23. On average, how many pounds of nitrogen are discharged to ground water from a properly operating septic system each year?
a. 10 pounds per person using the system
b. nitrogen is fully treated by the septic system
c. 32 pounds, 4 shillings and three pence
d. the equivalent of a herd of cows
24. Which of the following statements about urban lawns is false?
a. some common pesticides applied to lawns are routinely detected in
urban streams
b. few people take soil tests before applying fertilizers to their lawn
c. atmospheric deposition supplies at least a third of the nutrients
needed for a lawn
d. lawns produce no runoff
25. If lawns were a crop, where would they stack up in terms of total area in the United States?
a. 5th, after corn, wheat, soybeans and hay
b. 2nd, after illegal marijuana
c. 24th, it’s a big country
d. 9th, after corn, wheat, soybeans, hay, cotton, sorghum, rice, and
millet.
e. 42nd, (right behind emu ranching)
26. How many pounds of active pesticide ingredients are applied to lawns in our country each year?
a. 18 million
b. 0.2 million
c. no one uses pesticides since Silent Spring was published
d. 54 million
e. 70 million
27. How many pounds of grass trimmings are generated by the average suburban lawn each year?
a. 1500 pounds
b. none, the rabbits eat it all
c. 6 pounds, eight ounces
d. 2,100 long tons
28. How many fecal coliform bacteria are produced by an average sized dog dropping?
a. 49
b. 1200
c. 3 billion
d. what a disgusting question
e. trick question, dogs only produce fecal streptococci bacteria
29. According the EPA, water pollution prompted closings or swimming advisories at how may beaches around the country in 1996?
a. three in New Jersey, one in Florida
b. 1000
c. 2500
d. none
e. 216
30. What well known American said "When the well’s dry, we know the worth of water"?
a. Will Rogers
b. Aldo Leopold
c. Chris Rock
d. Ben Franklin
e. Mark Twain
Watershed Quiz Answers
1.b
2.a
3.b
4.c
5.d
6.c
7.c, e, g, h
8.a
9.b
10.c
11.c
12.b
13.b
14.a
15.a
16.e
17.e
18.b
19.d
20.c
21.d
22.b
23.a
24.d
25.a
26.e
27.a
28.c
29.c
30.d
(This appears on The Center For Watershed Protection’s website: http://www.cwp.org/ )
Answers are listed at the bottom.
1. A watershed is generally defined as:
a. a building that stores water
b. all the land area that drains to a given point in a water body
c. all the water area that drains to a given point in a landform
d. a moment in time when you cross into a new area
e. a new way of organizing environmental agencies
2. Percentage of Americans who can correctly answer the first question, according to national surveys.
a. 41%
b. Every red-blooded American
c. 20%
d. 69% of college educated males that stop to ask for directions
e. 0%, and we shouldn’t teach the subject in our schools
3. On average, how much land is converted to urban land use in the United States each year?
a. 500,000 acres
b. over one million acres
c. no net loss
d. 9.4 acres
e. 49,000 Walmart equivalents
4. Which of the following comprises the greatest percentage of impervious cover in suburban areas?
a. rooftops
b. lawns
c. roads, parking lots and driveways
d. vacant lots
5. Which is best watershed management unit for conducting local watershed management plans?
a. sub-basin
b. watershed
c. basin
d. subwatershed
e. catchment
6. Which is the largest watershed management unit?
a. sub-basin
b. watershed
c. basin
d. subwatershed
e. catchment
7. Which of the following pollutants are frequently found in most samples of urban stormwater runoff? (select all that apply)
a. dilithium
b. laetrile
c. total phosphorus
d. vanadium
e. copper
f. prozac
g. zinc
h. fecal coliform bacteria
8. Stream order is a technique to:
a. classify different streams based on their relative location in the
drainage network
b. stop stream disturbance by issuing a regulatory permit
c. prevent flow from running downhill
9 . When a first order stream flows into another first order stream, the resulting stream order is:
a. first order
b. second order
c. third order
d. back ordered
e. fluvial-3
10. First and second order streams comprise what percent of the total stream and river mileage of the United States?
a. 10%
b. 48%
c. 67%
d. 100%
11. How much land in a watershed is taken up by a stream buffer network that extends a distance of 100 feet from either side of the stream?
a. 15%
b. 25%
c. 5%
d. 0%, nobody is going to ever take my land
12. Recent watershed research has discovered that urban stream quality begins to sharply decline once impervious cover in a watershed exceeds:
a. 45%
b. 10%
c. 75%
d. 125%
e. 3.1414 %
13. The residential zoning category that produces the amount of impervious cover at which stream quality begin to decline is:
a. ten acre lots
b. one acre lots
c. * acre lots
d. townhouses
e. apartment buildings
14. What fraction of the total water supply on the planet is available for use by humans?
a. 0.1 percent
b. all of it
c. 25 percent
d. 48%
15. How many gallons of water fall on a one acre yard during a one inch rainfall?
a. 27,200 gallons
b. none, the rain falls only plains of Spain
c. 4 imperial gallons + one pint
d. enough to flood my basement
e. 45,000 gallons
16. How much more stormwater runoff is produced by a one acre parking lot compared to a one acre meadow?
a. 6%
b. 78%
c. no difference
d. 100%
e. 1600%
17. According to the US EPA, what percentage of river pollution is caused by urban stormwater runoff in the nation?
a. virtually none, industrial pollution is the major problem
b. virtually none, trees cause pollution
c. 21 percent
d. 99 percent
e. 11 percent
18. How many Americans can correctly identify that stormwater runoff is a common sourceof pollution of streams, rivers, and oceans?
a. 3%
b. 22%
c. 30%
d. 34%
e. every red-blooded American understands this concept
19. A single quart of motor oil dumped down a storm sewer creates an oil slick of what size?
a. no slick, sinks to bottom
b. no slick, oil travels from storm sewer to treatment plant
c. 160 square feet
d. 2 acres
e. twice the size of the Exxon Valdez
20. What percentage of the urban population of the United States relies on groundwater for its drinking water?
a. 4.8 %
b. 22%
c. 30%
d. 90%
e. 0%, everybody drinks bottled water
21. What percentage of Americans rely on septic systems to dispose of their wastewater?
a. none, we have achieved universal sanitation except in some really
rural areas
b. 16%
c. 21%
d. 25%
e. 37%
22. What percentage of Americans that own a septic system don’t know where it is located on their property.
a. every red-blooded American knows where his or her septic system is.
b. 12%
c. 2%
d. 0%
e. 67%
23. On average, how many pounds of nitrogen are discharged to ground water from a properly operating septic system each year?
a. 10 pounds per person using the system
b. nitrogen is fully treated by the septic system
c. 32 pounds, 4 shillings and three pence
d. the equivalent of a herd of cows
24. Which of the following statements about urban lawns is false?
a. some common pesticides applied to lawns are routinely detected in
urban streams
b. few people take soil tests before applying fertilizers to their lawn
c. atmospheric deposition supplies at least a third of the nutrients
needed for a lawn
d. lawns produce no runoff
25. If lawns were a crop, where would they stack up in terms of total area in the United States?
a. 5th, after corn, wheat, soybeans and hay
b. 2nd, after illegal marijuana
c. 24th, it’s a big country
d. 9th, after corn, wheat, soybeans, hay, cotton, sorghum, rice, and
millet.
e. 42nd, (right behind emu ranching)
26. How many pounds of active pesticide ingredients are applied to lawns in our country each year?
a. 18 million
b. 0.2 million
c. no one uses pesticides since Silent Spring was published
d. 54 million
e. 70 million
27. How many pounds of grass trimmings are generated by the average suburban lawn each year?
a. 1500 pounds
b. none, the rabbits eat it all
c. 6 pounds, eight ounces
d. 2,100 long tons
28. How many fecal coliform bacteria are produced by an average sized dog dropping?
a. 49
b. 1200
c. 3 billion
d. what a disgusting question
e. trick question, dogs only produce fecal streptococci bacteria
29. According the EPA, water pollution prompted closings or swimming advisories at how may beaches around the country in 1996?
a. three in New Jersey, one in Florida
b. 1000
c. 2500
d. none
e. 216
30. What well known American said "When the well’s dry, we know the worth of water"?
a. Will Rogers
b. Aldo Leopold
c. Chris Rock
d. Ben Franklin
e. Mark Twain
Watershed Quiz Answers
1.b
2.a
3.b
4.c
5.d
6.c
7.c, e, g, h
8.a
9.b
10.c
11.c
12.b
13.b
14.a
15.a
16.e
17.e
18.b
19.d
20.c
21.d
22.b
23.a
24.d
25.a
26.e
27.a
28.c
29.c
30.d
Public Water Supply Management 101: A Short Primer and Call to Action for Newcomers and the Newly Involved
A Whatcom Watch Article: October-November 2003
BIO: John Watts currently serves on the Bellingham City Council as the Ward 3 representative. A retired chemical engineer and businessman, John has lived and worked in eight different states and traveled extensively, both within the U.S. and internationally, and writes from that perspective. John served for three years as chair of the Bellingham City Council’s Lake Whatcom Watershed Committee. In this capacity, he also chaired the Citizens’ Task Force, which was established to review methods by which the Silver Beach Ordinance could be changed to add flexibility and fairness to this measure, without sacrificing its intended effectiveness.
-----------------------------------------------------
Having sufficient water of good quality to drink has been considered essential since human history was first recorded. Certainly, no one can disagree that this statement is true, but it’s important to keep this in mind for later reference.
In the U.S., about 30 percent of our population receives its drinking water from surface sources, like streams, lakes and protected reservoirs, but most people get their water from wells and underground aquifers, which are replenished by groundwater, filtering and cleansing itself through the earth.
Unprotected surface water sources are inherently more vulnerable to contamination, especially from human impacts, typically referred to simply as ‘development.’ That is why most cities (in the U.S. or elsewhere in the world), that depend upon surface water for their public supply have almost universally taken thoughtful, and sometimes drastic, steps to protect their reservoirs.
Examples abound, but on the West Coast these prudent cities include Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, Vancouver, Portland, San Francisco and Los Angeles, just to name a few. All of these cities had the foresight many years ago to implement and institutionalize programs to protect their essential water supplies in the interest of public health and responsible long-term economics.
Why Isn’t Lake Whatcom A Protected Reservoir, Too?
Good question! Even though common sense dictates that protecting our water supply is critically important, there are always temptations and pressures to cut corners and delay taking those measures that are known to be the most effective and efficient. If communities don’t already have strict rules of protection in place, it’s difficult to initiate truly effective programs until it is too late. Unfortunately, this is the situation now being faced by Whatcom County and the city of Bellingham regarding the Lake Whatcom Reservoir.
Unfortunately for us, Lake Whatcom was “discovered” by our descendents over 150 years ago—during a time when there appeared to be limitless natural resources. Most of the trees had been cut in the watershed, and most of Silver Beach platted, before the lake even became the city’s official water source. This contrast with other protected reservoirs should not be used as an excuse to give up in our protection efforts, but instead as a challenge to our ingenuity.
Even today, here in the Pacific Northwest, it’s easy to assume that water is in such abundance that allowing a little degradation and waste here and there will not hurt; that Mother Nature will somehow take care of things and restore our water quality and supply enough to last for our future needs. That type of thinking is erroneous and shortsighted indeed!
Lake Whatcom and its larger sibling, Lake Chelan, are unique, largely pristine lakes of exceptional purity—truly rarities in nature. In fact, both lakes are so pure that neither has adequate defense mechanisms to counter pollution from runoff, meaning they are susceptible to steady degradation, which is irreversible. While all lakes naturally degrade over time, this generally takes thousands of years to occur. Lake Whatcom is showing clear signs of this happening in just a few decades. That’s a clear sign there is a problem!
Why should we worry about premature degradation of Lake Whatcom? Two answers come to mind very quickly—our children and our pocketbooks! Taking care of our reservoir also means taking care of our kids and others who will eventually come here to live. Taking care of our pocketbooks means we won’t have to pay for building additional, expensive water treatment facilities to clean up dirtier water so we can drink it.
Finding ‘other’ sources of water—as some suggest—is simply out of the question because it is not legally available to us and the costs of bringing it here would be prohibitive anyway. That leaves us the choice of taking care of what we have—the Lake Whatcom reservoir! One valuable legacy we can leave our kids is to take care of our water. If we fail in this, their legacy will be to clean up our mess, at their expense.
The Role of Government Agencies
Often people think that problems like protecting our water are the job of governmental agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Ecology, the Department of Health or the Department of Fish and Wildlife. This is true to an extent, however, these agencies rarely act forcefully until a real problem has already occurred, when it’s too late to prevent it. These agencies can become much more effective when local communities, like us, take the lead in establishing preventative programs with teeth in them. Under these circumstances, agencies can shine in helping to enforce adopted regulations and educating and informing the public.
So, we can’t really blame government agencies for our failure to impose reasonable rules upon ourselves. As Pogo said “We have met the enemy, and it is us.” Until local governments like Whatcom County and the city of Bellingham decide to take stronger action to protect our reservoir in perpetuity, we can’t expect much timely help from others.
The Problem, Clearly Stated
This brings us to our current situation: what to do about Lake Whatcom? The water in the lake actually belongs to the citizens of the state of Washington. Yet, strangely, this water is assigned no intrinsic value of its own—zero! When the city of Bellingham or other water purveyors sell this water, they are only allowed to charge for the actual costs of treating it, not the cost of the water itself – which, of course, is zero anyway. Following this logic, just how valuable can our water be if we assign it no tangible value?
This is a paradox almost beyond comprehension, yet by our actions—or non-actions—we seem to verify the notion that we value our water mostly as lip service to an idea, not as the irreplaceable resource that it is! Only ‘we,’ the public, can change this situation for the better. We can do so by demanding that our elected officials put into place the kind of permanent restrictions befitting our reservoir, understanding that these measures must be enacted carefully, reasonably and fairly if they are to withstand the inevitable tests of time and legal challenge.
This kind of no-nonsense direction from the public is essential if efforts to effect lasting change are to be successful. Observations over the years seem to confirm that most politicians and bureaucrats will tend to do as little as possible unless they are given strong, sustained direction from the public they serve. Quick fixes sound nice, but rarely become effective long-term solutions, which means the public must stay focused on seeing necessary changes actually made and implemented over time. Because elected officials come and go with some frequency, and their individual understandings and priorities vary, only constant public involvement can be relied upon to produce the desired outcomes.
Bottom line: If citizens want to leave a legacy of a pure and protected water supply, they must shoulder the responsibility of making this happen themselves!
Past, Present and Future
Past actions taken on Lake Whatcom generally fit into three categories, all at public cost:
• Monitoring of the source water [untreated]
• Enhancing water treatment facilities [filtration plant, chlorination, storage, distribution]
• Periodic reporting on drinking water [restrictions, quality advisories, public relations]
Taken together, these actions represent a ‘multiple barrier’ approach to protecting human health, as mandated by the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act and Amendments. Each of these barriers adds its own layer of protection, but the one that is most effective, and least costly, is the first one—a clean water supply source.
Of course, should our source water become increasingly contaminated, drinkable water can still be produced, though it won’t taste or smell as good, or be as healthy for human consumption. While it is true that technology can address this type of problem, this comes at a very high additional cost. For example, the U.S. Navy uses desalination methods (boiling and condensing) to produce potable water from seawater, and NASA employs advanced technology to enable astronauts to reuse their own body wastes for drinking purposes. These are proven technologies, but they are very expensive to acquire and to operate. So it is with any enhanced water treatment facilities the city of Bellingham would need to build and operate if the water in Lake Whatcom degrades sufficiently. It’s not a question of whether this will happen, but when! That’s why taking strong protective action now will pay off big-time in the future.
A Breakthrough in Thinking
A milestone worth noting was the Joint Resolution adopted in 1992 by the Whatcom County Council and Bellingham City Council, which officially recognized for the first time the need for more adequate reservoir protections. After almost 90 years since becoming a city, it seems we finally woke up to some rather obvious realities! If one subscribes to the belief that 50 percent of a cure is the recognition that there is actually a problem, we are a little over halfway there now. Let’s hope it doesn’t take another five generations to complete this task, because we don’t have that long to wait!
The 1992 Joint Resolution, although it lacked real teeth, did serve its purpose of establishing a public policy that emphasizes prevention over treatment, which if backed up by strong measures like enforceable ordinances will begin to make a difference in this watershed. It was also the first time the name “Reservoir” was used to denote the primary and highest use of Lake Whatcom. That is also helpful to continued protection efforts.
More information on the 1992 Joint Resolution and the subsequently adopted 21 Goal Statements is readily available from the WSU Cooperative Extension Web site at: http://www.lakewhatcom.wsu.edu.
Progress During the Last Five Years
At the above Web site is also listed “A Brief Chronology of Lake Whatcom Management Program” that will interest new readers. This chronology begins in 1990 and ends in 2000. In 1999, three specific priorities were identified for action; land use, watershed ownership and stormwater management.
Since that time, the city of Bellingham has taken some strong steps toward arresting the impacts of development in its small portion of this watershed, including:
• The 2000 adoption of a Land-Use Ordinance as an immediate management response to the DOE 303d listing of the lake as an impaired waterbody. This controversial measure effectively addressed four critical land use parameters: density, allowed uses, impervious surface coverage and seasonal construction limits. It was also thoroughly conditioned by a Citizens’ Task Force, which added provisions for fairness and flexibility in addition to enhancing its efficacy. Although it technically applies to only 2 percent of the watershed, it was unanimously decided to extend its provisions outside the city limits as well on an advisory basis.
• The adoption, in 2000, of a Watershed Acquisition Ordinance, which funds watershed property preservation efforts, using a $5 per month surcharge on monthly water rates. This measure was stimulated by property transfer provisions of the Land-Use Ordinance, and strongly buttressed by the public support generated by an earlier public initiative with the same purpose. To date, nearly 900 acres have been purchased or preserved, using science-based criteria developed by citizens with city and county assistance.
• The adoption in 2001 of a more comprehensive Surface and Stormwater Utility, funded by new utility rates assessed in proportion to actual impervious surface area. Also controversial, these rates allow the city to meet federal and state mandates, which require municipalities to assume perpetual responsibility for their runoff, and to meet water quality standards in addition to preventing flooding and erosion.
Other steps have also been taken, such as the Water Source Protection Plan adopted administratively in 2000, which must be updated by 2006, and other ongoing efforts within the Lake Whatcom Management Program that focused on specific goals.
The county and other agencies have also taken positive steps—although sometimes this has required great coaxing. Some examples include the new county development standards that are about to become official, the county’s interim downzone of the watershed and the state Department of Natural Resources landscape plan.
What’s Next?
Future plans and actions for protecting the Lake Whatcom Reservoir will be driven by demands from elected officials, their professional staff and the public—and not necessarily in that order. The efforts being taken to date are substantial, but probably inadequate to insure the future health of our reservoir. The direction we take will largely depend upon public demand, and our ability to provide the necessary funding and staff for establishing a permanent mechanism charged with the care of our reservoir. What form this may take has yet to be determined, but in the end, it will be the public that decides what our legacy will be regarding Lake Whatcom. Let’s get on with it! §
BIO: John Watts currently serves on the Bellingham City Council as the Ward 3 representative. A retired chemical engineer and businessman, John has lived and worked in eight different states and traveled extensively, both within the U.S. and internationally, and writes from that perspective. John served for three years as chair of the Bellingham City Council’s Lake Whatcom Watershed Committee. In this capacity, he also chaired the Citizens’ Task Force, which was established to review methods by which the Silver Beach Ordinance could be changed to add flexibility and fairness to this measure, without sacrificing its intended effectiveness.
-----------------------------------------------------
Having sufficient water of good quality to drink has been considered essential since human history was first recorded. Certainly, no one can disagree that this statement is true, but it’s important to keep this in mind for later reference.
In the U.S., about 30 percent of our population receives its drinking water from surface sources, like streams, lakes and protected reservoirs, but most people get their water from wells and underground aquifers, which are replenished by groundwater, filtering and cleansing itself through the earth.
Unprotected surface water sources are inherently more vulnerable to contamination, especially from human impacts, typically referred to simply as ‘development.’ That is why most cities (in the U.S. or elsewhere in the world), that depend upon surface water for their public supply have almost universally taken thoughtful, and sometimes drastic, steps to protect their reservoirs.
Examples abound, but on the West Coast these prudent cities include Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, Vancouver, Portland, San Francisco and Los Angeles, just to name a few. All of these cities had the foresight many years ago to implement and institutionalize programs to protect their essential water supplies in the interest of public health and responsible long-term economics.
Why Isn’t Lake Whatcom A Protected Reservoir, Too?
Good question! Even though common sense dictates that protecting our water supply is critically important, there are always temptations and pressures to cut corners and delay taking those measures that are known to be the most effective and efficient. If communities don’t already have strict rules of protection in place, it’s difficult to initiate truly effective programs until it is too late. Unfortunately, this is the situation now being faced by Whatcom County and the city of Bellingham regarding the Lake Whatcom Reservoir.
Unfortunately for us, Lake Whatcom was “discovered” by our descendents over 150 years ago—during a time when there appeared to be limitless natural resources. Most of the trees had been cut in the watershed, and most of Silver Beach platted, before the lake even became the city’s official water source. This contrast with other protected reservoirs should not be used as an excuse to give up in our protection efforts, but instead as a challenge to our ingenuity.
Even today, here in the Pacific Northwest, it’s easy to assume that water is in such abundance that allowing a little degradation and waste here and there will not hurt; that Mother Nature will somehow take care of things and restore our water quality and supply enough to last for our future needs. That type of thinking is erroneous and shortsighted indeed!
Lake Whatcom and its larger sibling, Lake Chelan, are unique, largely pristine lakes of exceptional purity—truly rarities in nature. In fact, both lakes are so pure that neither has adequate defense mechanisms to counter pollution from runoff, meaning they are susceptible to steady degradation, which is irreversible. While all lakes naturally degrade over time, this generally takes thousands of years to occur. Lake Whatcom is showing clear signs of this happening in just a few decades. That’s a clear sign there is a problem!
Why should we worry about premature degradation of Lake Whatcom? Two answers come to mind very quickly—our children and our pocketbooks! Taking care of our reservoir also means taking care of our kids and others who will eventually come here to live. Taking care of our pocketbooks means we won’t have to pay for building additional, expensive water treatment facilities to clean up dirtier water so we can drink it.
Finding ‘other’ sources of water—as some suggest—is simply out of the question because it is not legally available to us and the costs of bringing it here would be prohibitive anyway. That leaves us the choice of taking care of what we have—the Lake Whatcom reservoir! One valuable legacy we can leave our kids is to take care of our water. If we fail in this, their legacy will be to clean up our mess, at their expense.
The Role of Government Agencies
Often people think that problems like protecting our water are the job of governmental agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Ecology, the Department of Health or the Department of Fish and Wildlife. This is true to an extent, however, these agencies rarely act forcefully until a real problem has already occurred, when it’s too late to prevent it. These agencies can become much more effective when local communities, like us, take the lead in establishing preventative programs with teeth in them. Under these circumstances, agencies can shine in helping to enforce adopted regulations and educating and informing the public.
So, we can’t really blame government agencies for our failure to impose reasonable rules upon ourselves. As Pogo said “We have met the enemy, and it is us.” Until local governments like Whatcom County and the city of Bellingham decide to take stronger action to protect our reservoir in perpetuity, we can’t expect much timely help from others.
The Problem, Clearly Stated
This brings us to our current situation: what to do about Lake Whatcom? The water in the lake actually belongs to the citizens of the state of Washington. Yet, strangely, this water is assigned no intrinsic value of its own—zero! When the city of Bellingham or other water purveyors sell this water, they are only allowed to charge for the actual costs of treating it, not the cost of the water itself – which, of course, is zero anyway. Following this logic, just how valuable can our water be if we assign it no tangible value?
This is a paradox almost beyond comprehension, yet by our actions—or non-actions—we seem to verify the notion that we value our water mostly as lip service to an idea, not as the irreplaceable resource that it is! Only ‘we,’ the public, can change this situation for the better. We can do so by demanding that our elected officials put into place the kind of permanent restrictions befitting our reservoir, understanding that these measures must be enacted carefully, reasonably and fairly if they are to withstand the inevitable tests of time and legal challenge.
This kind of no-nonsense direction from the public is essential if efforts to effect lasting change are to be successful. Observations over the years seem to confirm that most politicians and bureaucrats will tend to do as little as possible unless they are given strong, sustained direction from the public they serve. Quick fixes sound nice, but rarely become effective long-term solutions, which means the public must stay focused on seeing necessary changes actually made and implemented over time. Because elected officials come and go with some frequency, and their individual understandings and priorities vary, only constant public involvement can be relied upon to produce the desired outcomes.
Bottom line: If citizens want to leave a legacy of a pure and protected water supply, they must shoulder the responsibility of making this happen themselves!
Past, Present and Future
Past actions taken on Lake Whatcom generally fit into three categories, all at public cost:
• Monitoring of the source water [untreated]
• Enhancing water treatment facilities [filtration plant, chlorination, storage, distribution]
• Periodic reporting on drinking water [restrictions, quality advisories, public relations]
Taken together, these actions represent a ‘multiple barrier’ approach to protecting human health, as mandated by the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act and Amendments. Each of these barriers adds its own layer of protection, but the one that is most effective, and least costly, is the first one—a clean water supply source.
Of course, should our source water become increasingly contaminated, drinkable water can still be produced, though it won’t taste or smell as good, or be as healthy for human consumption. While it is true that technology can address this type of problem, this comes at a very high additional cost. For example, the U.S. Navy uses desalination methods (boiling and condensing) to produce potable water from seawater, and NASA employs advanced technology to enable astronauts to reuse their own body wastes for drinking purposes. These are proven technologies, but they are very expensive to acquire and to operate. So it is with any enhanced water treatment facilities the city of Bellingham would need to build and operate if the water in Lake Whatcom degrades sufficiently. It’s not a question of whether this will happen, but when! That’s why taking strong protective action now will pay off big-time in the future.
A Breakthrough in Thinking
A milestone worth noting was the Joint Resolution adopted in 1992 by the Whatcom County Council and Bellingham City Council, which officially recognized for the first time the need for more adequate reservoir protections. After almost 90 years since becoming a city, it seems we finally woke up to some rather obvious realities! If one subscribes to the belief that 50 percent of a cure is the recognition that there is actually a problem, we are a little over halfway there now. Let’s hope it doesn’t take another five generations to complete this task, because we don’t have that long to wait!
The 1992 Joint Resolution, although it lacked real teeth, did serve its purpose of establishing a public policy that emphasizes prevention over treatment, which if backed up by strong measures like enforceable ordinances will begin to make a difference in this watershed. It was also the first time the name “Reservoir” was used to denote the primary and highest use of Lake Whatcom. That is also helpful to continued protection efforts.
More information on the 1992 Joint Resolution and the subsequently adopted 21 Goal Statements is readily available from the WSU Cooperative Extension Web site at: http://www.lakewhatcom.wsu.edu.
Progress During the Last Five Years
At the above Web site is also listed “A Brief Chronology of Lake Whatcom Management Program” that will interest new readers. This chronology begins in 1990 and ends in 2000. In 1999, three specific priorities were identified for action; land use, watershed ownership and stormwater management.
Since that time, the city of Bellingham has taken some strong steps toward arresting the impacts of development in its small portion of this watershed, including:
• The 2000 adoption of a Land-Use Ordinance as an immediate management response to the DOE 303d listing of the lake as an impaired waterbody. This controversial measure effectively addressed four critical land use parameters: density, allowed uses, impervious surface coverage and seasonal construction limits. It was also thoroughly conditioned by a Citizens’ Task Force, which added provisions for fairness and flexibility in addition to enhancing its efficacy. Although it technically applies to only 2 percent of the watershed, it was unanimously decided to extend its provisions outside the city limits as well on an advisory basis.
• The adoption, in 2000, of a Watershed Acquisition Ordinance, which funds watershed property preservation efforts, using a $5 per month surcharge on monthly water rates. This measure was stimulated by property transfer provisions of the Land-Use Ordinance, and strongly buttressed by the public support generated by an earlier public initiative with the same purpose. To date, nearly 900 acres have been purchased or preserved, using science-based criteria developed by citizens with city and county assistance.
• The adoption in 2001 of a more comprehensive Surface and Stormwater Utility, funded by new utility rates assessed in proportion to actual impervious surface area. Also controversial, these rates allow the city to meet federal and state mandates, which require municipalities to assume perpetual responsibility for their runoff, and to meet water quality standards in addition to preventing flooding and erosion.
Other steps have also been taken, such as the Water Source Protection Plan adopted administratively in 2000, which must be updated by 2006, and other ongoing efforts within the Lake Whatcom Management Program that focused on specific goals.
The county and other agencies have also taken positive steps—although sometimes this has required great coaxing. Some examples include the new county development standards that are about to become official, the county’s interim downzone of the watershed and the state Department of Natural Resources landscape plan.
What’s Next?
Future plans and actions for protecting the Lake Whatcom Reservoir will be driven by demands from elected officials, their professional staff and the public—and not necessarily in that order. The efforts being taken to date are substantial, but probably inadequate to insure the future health of our reservoir. The direction we take will largely depend upon public demand, and our ability to provide the necessary funding and staff for establishing a permanent mechanism charged with the care of our reservoir. What form this may take has yet to be determined, but in the end, it will be the public that decides what our legacy will be regarding Lake Whatcom. Let’s get on with it! §
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Silver Beach Ordinance - Citizens Task Force Recommendations
Final Recommendations Survey - August 17, 2000:
In January, 2000, the City Council enacted an Emergency Interim Ordinance -known as the 'Silver Beach Ordinance'- as the City's management response to the Dept of Ecology's 303 (d) listing of Lake Whatcom as an impaired waterbody, due to its adverse findings of fecal coliform and dissolved oxygen. This Emergency action was controversial and required considerable additional time and citizen input to achieve better fairness and flexibility in the Ordinance. This took two primary forms; Public Hearings and a Citizen's Task Force to hear concerns, gather information and make recommendations for improvements to the Ordinance, which itself sought to address four main topics; Land Use, Density, Impervious Surfaces and Seasonal Limits on Clearing & Grading -all in the City's portion of the Lake Whatcom Watershed.
A ten-person Task Force was appointed by the mayor that reasonably represented major stakeholder groups, with 8 members who actually lived in this watershed. The Task Force was assigned to work under the auspices of the Council's Lake Whatcom Watershed Committee to facilitate its coordination with staff, the public and the Council as a whole. The combined group agreed to meet for 8 work sessions -at 2-week intervals, over the Summer- and then work to come to consensus on recommendations to discharge its duty. This group was able to cover a wide range of suggestions and come to consensus, or near consensus, on over half of them! The group also requested 2 additional meetings to examine how its recommendations would be incorporated into the Ordinance, and to present it's recommendations to the City Council.
As a result of this Task Force and its recommendations, the Silver Beach Ordinance was both strengthened and made more fair and flexible, with the result of being unanimously adopted by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Each of the Task Force public meetings was recorded and later transcribed into minutes, to memorialize the important discussions and work that was accomplished. Each and every member of this Task Force contributed significantly to its success, and the City owes a debt of gratitude to them for their voluntary service on this important matter!
The following is provided as a synoptic list of topics covered and recommendations made by the Silver Beach Citizen’s Task Force. This summary has been accumulated during the course of seven meetings of the group. Respondents should consider each topic heading in the context of meeting discussions, utilizing the reference materials provided as a resource.
Recommendations are grouped by topic and variable responses. Please indicate the choice which best reflects your views by placing a check mark in the left margin adjacent the appropriate line.
[Note 1: The primary concerns, clarifications & suggested changes discussed, are annotated within the table, where applicable.]
[Note 2: Votes cast (either in person, or as a submitted proxy) & recorded during the meeting are tabulated in the √) column.]
[Note 3: In some instances, more than one choice per group seemed permissible, so tally totals vary somewhat.]
√) CATEGORY & GROUP SURVEY CHOICE (pick one in each group)
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 1. SCIENCE:
(8) A1. Sufficient information exists to verify Lake Whatcom is impacted by development
(2) B1. Sufficient information exists to suggest Lake Whatcom may be impacted by development
(3) C1. Insufficient information exists to conclude the Lake is/may be impacted by development
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring the view that sufficient information exists to either verify/suggest Lake Whatcom is/may be impacted by development.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 2. PUBLIC EDUCATION:
(0) A1. Public education efforts by the city/county are adequate for Lake Whatcom issues
13) B1. Public education efforts by the city/county should be improved and/or expanded
CONCLUSION: Unanimous belief that public education efforts by the city/county should be improved and/or expanded.
--------------------------------------------------------
(8) A2. Public education efforts appear to have a significant influence on Lake protection efforts
(4) B2. Public education efforts appear to be insignificant with regard to Lake protection efforts
(*somewhat confusing language; does this refer to current (actual) or potential influence?)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; majority favoring the view that public education efforts appear to have a significant influence on Lake protection efforts. Some confusion in meaning; may need clarifying.
--------------------------------------------------------
Public education efforts should be:
12) A3. High priority
(1) B3. Medium priority
(0) C3. Low priority for the city and county
CONCLUSION: Near unanimous belief that public education should be a high priority.
(This has been recommended to the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program as a priority for 2001)
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 3. MORATORIUM.
(2) A1. There should be a moratorium on virtually all watershed construction forever
(7) B1. There should be a moratorium until a Total Maximum Daily Load study is completed
(2) C1. There should be a moratorium on single family construction until ordinances are revised
(0) D1. There should be a moratorium on subdivisions only; lots of adequate size could be built
(6) E1. No moratorium is necessary, current protection efforts are underway and evolving
CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 4. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
(1) A1. The City Comprehensive Plan currently contains sufficient policy guidance for protection
(3) B1. The City/County/District Joint Goals and Policies are adequate guidance for protection
(9) C1. Stronger and/or revised policy guidance is necessary for adequate lake protection
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring stronger and/or revised policy guidance as necessary for adequate lake protection.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 5. NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. (The Silverbeach Neighborhood Plan addresses permitted land uses, i.e. zoning, and density/lot size requirements)
(9) A1. The Silverbeach Neighborhood Plan should be updated to aid lake protection efforts
(0) B1. The Silverbeach Neighborhood Plan is adequate or less important than other efforts
(3) C1. Current land use designations and densities are acceptable
(8) D1. Land use designations and densities should be revised
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring updating Neighborhood Plan or revising land use designations and densities.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 6. DENSITY/MINIMUM LOT SIZE.
(4) A1. The current density designations should be retained, ranging from 6000-20,000 S.F. /lot
(7) B1. All of Silverbeach should be downzoned to the city minimum of 1 lot/20,000sf.
(1) C1. Only areas where there would be a significant reduction in lots should be down-zoned
(1) +D1.? All of Silverbeach should be down-zoned to a minimum of 1 lot/13,333sf
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring some type of downzone.
--------------------------------------------------------
(5) A2. The minimum buildable lot size should conform to minimum density requirements
(5) B2. Lots should be consolidated by appropriate means to achieve min. lot size requirements
(3) C2. Lots that are substandard should not be allowed to consolidate, unless adjacent
(1) D2. All legal lots of record should be buildable, regardless of size or sub area density
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; near unanimously favoring definition of a minimum buildable lot size, possibly requiring consolidation.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 7. TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDRs).
(8) A1. Transfer of Development Rights (homes) out of the watershed should be permitted*
(9) B1. Transfer of Development Rights within the watershed should be considered, when it would reduce new street or utility construction and extension impacts*
(* Does not need to be an either/or choice; can have both, none or either one)
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on need for some type of TDR program.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 8. BUILDING SETBACKS & PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
(9) A1. Front yard setbacks should be optionally reduced, to allow less driveway/impervious area
(4) B1. Reduced front yard setbacks should be required; driveways may not exceed this length
(0) C1. Rear setbacks should be increased from 10’ to require larger yard areas
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on need for some front yard setback reduction.
--------------------------------------------------------
(3) A2. The current, two, side-by-side, required parking spaces per lot is adequate*
(7) B2. Tandem parking, one behind the other, should be permitted*
(0) C2. Only one parking space per lot should be required
(* A2 & B2 are not mutually exclusive, could also cover C2, at owner’s option)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 9. PERMITTED/CONDITIONAL USES.
(4) A1. Permitted uses should be as stated in the current Silverbeach Ordinance
(6) B1. Permitted uses could be further restricted beyond those allowed in the ordinance
(3) C1. Permitted uses could be expanded
(3) D1. Permitted uses should be limited to single family dwellings & related only
CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
(2) A2. Conditional uses should be as stated in the ordinance
(8) B2. Conditional uses could be further restricted
(3) C2. Conditional uses could be expanded*
(* especially consider remodels)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring further restrictions.
--------------------------------------------------------
(0) A3. Livestock should be permitted outright in single family areas
(4) B3. Livestock may be permitted, if parcel size proportionate to required animal BMP’s
(3) C3. Livestock may only be permitted as a conditional use
(6) D3. Livestock should not be permitted
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on need for some reduction in livestock permits.
--------------------------------------------------------
(7) A4. Accessory Dwelling Units should continue to be prohibited
(4) B4. Accessory Dwelling Units could be considered as a conditional use
(1) C4. Accessory Dwelling Units could be permitted in lieu of subdivision, w/restrict. covenant
(4) +D4.(?) ADU’s OK, if =/< 2000 SF
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring continued prohibition.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 10. SUBDIVISION CODE.
(9) A1. Cluster development, which allows smaller lots and larger open space, should be allowed provided there is no increase in density beyond conventional
(2) B1. Cluster should only be allowed as presently permitted in areas 1,4,5,11 & 17
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on need for cluster development.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 11. STREET STANDARDS.
(0) A1. Street right of way width should remain @ 60’ for through streets and 50’ for cul de sacs
11) B1. Street right of way width should be narrowed below current minimums when feasible
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on allowing possible narrowing street right of way in SB.
--------------------------------------------------------
(0) A2. Full standard through streets should remain @ 28’ wide and cul de sacs 24’ wide
12) B2. Full standard streets should be narrowed when feasible
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on allowing possible narrowing full standard street right of way in SB.
--------------------------------------------------------
(0) A3. Full standard streets should include sidewalks on both sides
(9) B3. A sidewalk on one side should usually be sufficient, except on arterial streets
(5) C3. Sidewalks are not really necessary on local-access-only streets
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on allowing sidewalk reductions on full standard streets in SB.
--------------------------------------------------------
(1) A4. When required, sidewalk standards should remain @ 5’ in width
12) B4. Sidewalks should be narrowed and/or setback when feasible
Add group 5? Allow more pervious surfaces for sidewalks
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on narrowing sidewalks and/or setback when feasible
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 12. OPERATING ORDINANCES, SEPA, CLEARING, GRADING, STORMWATER.
(6) A1. SEPA Environmental Impact review should be applied the same citywide
(6) B1. SEPA review should be required for development in the watershed, except single family
CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
(3) A2. Clearing should continue to be allowed on undeveloped land w/a permit & BMP’s
10) B2. The Clearing Ordinance should prohibit any land clearing w/out a valid building permit
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring the view that the Clearing Ordinance should prohibit any land clearing without a valid building permit. Minority felt clearing should continue with a permit, using BMPs.
--------------------------------------------------------
(0) A3. Fill sites should continue to be permitted on land w/out a building permit
13) B3. The Grading Ordinance should prohibit fills w/out a valid building permit
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on Grading Ordinance prohibiting fills w/out a valid building permit.
--------------------------------------------------------
(1) A4. Single family lots should be exempt from all but erosion control stormwater regulations
12) B4. Single lots should comply with strict stormwater regulations, like treatment & detention*
(* within reason; define how determined?)
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on having single lots comply with strict stormwater regulations, like treatment & detention.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 13. WETLAND & STREAM ORDINANCE.
(3) A1. Wetland and stream buffers should remain @ 25’-100’ and 10’-50’ respectively
(2) B1. Wetland and stream buffers should probably be increased somewhat
(8) C1. Wetland and Stream buffers should be based on best available science for the purpose
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring the view that wetland and stream buffers should probably be increased. Minority felt no change was needed.
--------------------------------------------------------
(5) A2. Docks should continue to be permitted with size/length based on similar adjacent docks
(7) B2. Docks size and length should be more restricted than current patterns reflect
(3) C2. Docks should not be permitted any more
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring more dock restrictions.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 14. SHORELINE MASTER PLAN.
(2) A1. Residential shoreline setbacks should remain at 25’-35’ from the water’s edge
11) B1. Residential shoreline setbacks should be increased where feasible*
(* ambiguous; how is feasibility determined? administrative flexibility, plus appeals)
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on having residential shoreline setbacks should be increased where feasible.
--------------------------------------------------------
(3) A3. Bulkheads should continue to be permitted at/land-ward of the ordinary high water mark
(6) B3. Bulkheads should be further restricted, based on need for property protection
(3) C3. Bulkheads should not be permitted*
(* more discussion?)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring more bulkhead restrictions.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 15. IMPERVIOUS LIMITS.
(9) A1. The current impervious limits of the greater of 2000 SF or 15% of parcel area are OK
(0) B1. Impervious limits should be increased w/out additional requirements
(5) C1. Impervious limits could be increased w/mitigation
(2) D1. Impervious limits should be reduced where feasible
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring retention of the current impervious limits of the greater of 2000 SF or 15% of parcel area.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 16. ADDITIONS & REMODELS. (The following applies only to new impervious additions or remodels to existing homes that already exceed impervious limits)
(2) A1. All proposed exterior footprint additions must comply with adopted impervious limits
(6) B1. Exterior additions may be considered if there is no net increase in impervious area
(5) C1. Exterior additions may be considered only if there is a net reduction in impervious area
(0) D1. Exterior additions may occur only if there is at least a 2- for 1+ impervious reduction
(1) +E1? Increased impervious area for remodels, with tighter baseline impervious %, applicable
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring exterior additions if there is no net increase, or a net reduction in impervious area.
--------------------------------------------------------
(9) A2. Reconstruction should be allowed for damage due to fire, regardless of impervious area
(3) B2. Reconstruction due to damage must comply with adopted impervious limits*
(* only if built up to existing footprint & applicable impervious area limit; insurance issue?)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring reconstruction be allowed for damage due to fire, regardless of impervious area.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 17. PERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITS.
(2) A1. There should be no limit on the use of non-vegetative pervious systems, i.e. pavers etc.
(5) B1. Non-vegetated pervious systems should be limited to a minor extent
(6) C1. Non-vegetated pervious systems should be limited similar to impervious cover*
(* unclear; what does “similar to” mean?)
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on having some limits on non-vegetated, pervious systems.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 18. TRANSFER OF IMPERVIOUS CREDITS.
(7) A1. Impervious credits should be able to be purchased or transferred from parcel to parcel*
(9) B1. Impervious credits should be able to be earned with BMP’s, mitigation or similar*
(1) C1. Impervious credits should not be purchased or earned, stay within adopted limits
(* note A1 & B1 are not mutually exclusive, shouldn’t both be allowed?)
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on having some mechanism to earn additional impervious credits.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 19. FLEXIBLE INCENTIVES.
(8) A1. Impervious area could be expanded by other means, such as offsite mitigation/restoration
(1) B1. Impervious area could be expanded if site design mitigates impacts demonstrably
(9) C1. Incentives that would result in greater public benefit should allow added impervious area
(2) D1. Forget flexibility, could be too difficult to monitor, be fair or administer
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on having flexible incentives to earn additional impervious credits, while maintaining lake protection goals.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 20. NATIVE VEGETATION & LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS.
(2) A1. Strict native vegetation requirements should be adopted to retain or establish it*
(7) B1. There should be some native vegetation or landscape requirement for single lots*
(5) C1. All vegetation management should be voluntary with education and assistance provided
(0) D1. No requirement is necessary, most lots are landscaped to some degree anyway
(* for preserving or retaining native vegetation, would any credits be offered?)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring some native vegetation or landscape requirement for single lots.
--------------------------------------------------------
(8) A2. Consider limiting lawn area
(4) B2. Lawns are not a significant factor or are too difficult to regulate
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring some lawn area limits on single lots.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 21. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT.
(5) A1. Use of most or all pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers should be outright prohibited
(2) B1. Prohibit pesticides and herbicides, but a little fish fertilizer or manure compost is ok
(6) C1. No regulation needed, would be hard to monitor, harder to enforce or insignificant*
(* Hard to monitor or enforce; Federal Govt. enforces use close to water supply, per labels)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 22. SEASONAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITS. (* refers to ground disturbance only)
(2) A1. Seasonal limits make sense and are effective, make them shorter than present
(7) B1. Seasonal limits from May 1st to September 30th, as currently enacted, are OK
(3) C1. Seasonal limits should minimize spring impact, from 6/1 to 9/30
(2) D1. Seasonal limits are too restrictive at present, should be expanded**
+E1? ** if more than 4 months are allowed, add October, not May
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring keeping 5-month limit, or reducing springtime impacts.
--------------------------------------------------------
(7) A2. The current earthwork exemption area of 500 sq.ft. is appropriate
(3) B2. 500 sq.ft. is too much
(2) C2. 500 sq.ft. is too little
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring keeping the current earthwork exemption area of 500 sq.ft.
--------------------------------------------------------
(4) A3. Reconstruction due to damage should be allowed off-season, regardless of area
(7) B3. Reconstruction due to damage off-season should be allowed with controls.
(2) C3. Reconstruction will have to wait and comply with everyone else
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring allowing off-season reconstruction due to damage with controls.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 23. CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES.
(7) A1. Construction practices with little or no probable impact should be permitted off-season
(6) B1. Even with BMP’s, construction should wait for regular season
CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
(2) A2. Contractors that complete construction BMP course/certification can work off-season
(9) B2. No one can work off-season above exemption area thresholds.
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring not allowing off-season work, above exemption area thresholds.
--------------------------------------------------------
12) A3. Certification should be required to work in season, period.
(0) B3. Certification should not be required during open months
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on requiring certification to do construction work, even in season.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 24. FEES/ASSESSMENTS.
(0) A1. Only watershed residents should pay for stormwater impact remediation in the watershed
(2) B1. All city residents should pay for stormwater impact remediation in the watershed
10) C1. All water users should pay for stormwater impact remediation in the watershed
(2) D1. All water users should pay for remediation, w/watershed residents paying more
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring all water users paying for stormwater impact remediation in the watershed.
--------------------------------------------------------
(3) A2. Stormwater fees should be related to impervious area
(8) B2. Stormwater fees should be a flat rate per residence
(2) C2. Stormwater fees should be reduced for low impervious area and/or BMP’s
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; majority favoring stormwater fees on a flat rate per residence basis.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 25. PUBLIC WATERSHED LAND ACQUISITION IN THE WATERSHED. (Includes land as fee simple, TDR’s, impervious credits and conservation easements)
10) A1. Public land acquisition should be an essential part of lake management
(3) B1. Public land acquisition is helpful, but not essential
(0) C1. Public land acquisition is not the best use of public dollars
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement that public land acquisition should be either an essential, or a helpful, part of lake management. A large majority felt this was essential.
--------------------------------------------------------
(3) A2. City money should be used for City only land purchases
(3) B2. City money should be used for City and UGA (Geneva, Brownsville) purchases
(7) C2. City money should be used anywhere that it will have significant benefit in watershed
(* what is meant by “city money”? – levied & collected solely by COB?)
(0) C1. Public land acquisition is not the best use of public dollars
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement that City money should be used for public land acquisition in some manner. Majority felt it should be used anywhere that it will have significant benefit in watershed.
--------------------------------------------------------
(7) A3. Our first purchase priority should be land
(2) B3. Our first priority should be TDR’s
(0) C3. Our first priority should be impervious area credits
(2) D3. Our first priority should be conservation easements*
(4) E3. Our first priority should be compensation to owners not allowed to build on lots of record**
(this whole grouping is confusing; it sets priorities w/o evaluating efficacy of alternatives)
(1) +F3.? Our first priority should be relocating G-P’s intake to Basin #1 (who pays?)
(1) +G3.? All of the above (decisions on priority to be determined by WAAB/City Council)
(* if main purpose is to retain native vegetation, undisturbed, this option may be best)
(** if lots are ‘down-zoned’, by requiring a higher minimum lot size, or TDR/TIC program is adopted, this becomes top priority)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion on first purchase priority. This seems dependent upon the acquisition mechanisms adopted, the recommendations determined by a Watershed Acquisition Advisory Board, and the specific purchases approved by City Council.
--------------------------------------------------------
(0) A4. Funding for acquisition should come from a new land acquisition fee on water bills
(1) B4. Stormwater utility fee, normally used for improvements, maintenance and operations
(0) C4. From Greenways money, used for parks, open space, equipment
(0) D4. From grants (state & federal) & mitigation sources (private)
12) E4. All of the above
(0) F4. None of the above
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on using funding from all available sources.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 26. ENFORCEMENT.
(3) A1. Enforcement of the Silverbeach ordinance should be strict, literal and uniform
(1) B1. Enforcement should be phased in more gently, focussing on intent, adapting to fit
(9) C1. Enforcement should be firm, focussing on intent, and yield effective results
(* enforcement should be strongly tied to education!)
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on enforcement should be firm, focussing on intent, and yield effective results – or stricter.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 27. BENCHMARK/EFFECTIVENESS OF ACTIONS
10) A1. Benchmarks should be established to evaluate effectiveness of new ordinance provisions
(3) B1. Benchmarks, such as existing water quality monitoring and standards are sufficient
(0) C1. Benchmarks are not necessary; the proposed actions are likely to address quality concerns
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring establishing Benchmarks to evaluate effectiveness of the new ordinance provisions.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 28. ONGOING ADVISORY/STAKEHOLDER GROUP.
12) A1. A stakeholders group should remain empowered to advise Council on these issues
(0) B1. There are already too many people giving advice, nobody listens anyway!
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement that a stakeholders group should remain empowered to advise Council on these issues. Several members of the CTF expressed interest in remaining involved in some capacity to be determined.
--------------------------------------------------------
• SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS: Total Number by Voting category//Per Cent %//CUMULATIVE Per Cent %
UNANIMOUS [NO VOTES AGAINST A POSITION] 12//22.64//22.64
NEAR-UNANIMOUS [1 OR 2 VOTES AGAINST A POSITION] 11//20.76//43.4
Split opinion; large majority favoring [9 – 10 VOTES FOR A POSITION] 6//11.32//54.72
Split opinion; majority favoring [7 – 8 VOTES FOR A POSITION] 19//35.85//90.57
Split opinion [NO CLEAR MAJORITY POSITION] 5//9.43//100.0
Total Voted Categories or Sub-categories: 53
In January, 2000, the City Council enacted an Emergency Interim Ordinance -known as the 'Silver Beach Ordinance'- as the City's management response to the Dept of Ecology's 303 (d) listing of Lake Whatcom as an impaired waterbody, due to its adverse findings of fecal coliform and dissolved oxygen. This Emergency action was controversial and required considerable additional time and citizen input to achieve better fairness and flexibility in the Ordinance. This took two primary forms; Public Hearings and a Citizen's Task Force to hear concerns, gather information and make recommendations for improvements to the Ordinance, which itself sought to address four main topics; Land Use, Density, Impervious Surfaces and Seasonal Limits on Clearing & Grading -all in the City's portion of the Lake Whatcom Watershed.
A ten-person Task Force was appointed by the mayor that reasonably represented major stakeholder groups, with 8 members who actually lived in this watershed. The Task Force was assigned to work under the auspices of the Council's Lake Whatcom Watershed Committee to facilitate its coordination with staff, the public and the Council as a whole. The combined group agreed to meet for 8 work sessions -at 2-week intervals, over the Summer- and then work to come to consensus on recommendations to discharge its duty. This group was able to cover a wide range of suggestions and come to consensus, or near consensus, on over half of them! The group also requested 2 additional meetings to examine how its recommendations would be incorporated into the Ordinance, and to present it's recommendations to the City Council.
As a result of this Task Force and its recommendations, the Silver Beach Ordinance was both strengthened and made more fair and flexible, with the result of being unanimously adopted by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Each of the Task Force public meetings was recorded and later transcribed into minutes, to memorialize the important discussions and work that was accomplished. Each and every member of this Task Force contributed significantly to its success, and the City owes a debt of gratitude to them for their voluntary service on this important matter!
The following is provided as a synoptic list of topics covered and recommendations made by the Silver Beach Citizen’s Task Force. This summary has been accumulated during the course of seven meetings of the group. Respondents should consider each topic heading in the context of meeting discussions, utilizing the reference materials provided as a resource.
Recommendations are grouped by topic and variable responses. Please indicate the choice which best reflects your views by placing a check mark in the left margin adjacent the appropriate line.
[Note 1: The primary concerns, clarifications & suggested changes discussed, are annotated within the table, where applicable.]
[Note 2: Votes cast (either in person, or as a submitted proxy) & recorded during the meeting are tabulated in the √) column.]
[Note 3: In some instances, more than one choice per group seemed permissible, so tally totals vary somewhat.]
√) CATEGORY & GROUP SURVEY CHOICE (pick one in each group)
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 1. SCIENCE:
(8) A1. Sufficient information exists to verify Lake Whatcom is impacted by development
(2) B1. Sufficient information exists to suggest Lake Whatcom may be impacted by development
(3) C1. Insufficient information exists to conclude the Lake is/may be impacted by development
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring the view that sufficient information exists to either verify/suggest Lake Whatcom is/may be impacted by development.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 2. PUBLIC EDUCATION:
(0) A1. Public education efforts by the city/county are adequate for Lake Whatcom issues
13) B1. Public education efforts by the city/county should be improved and/or expanded
CONCLUSION: Unanimous belief that public education efforts by the city/county should be improved and/or expanded.
--------------------------------------------------------
(8) A2. Public education efforts appear to have a significant influence on Lake protection efforts
(4) B2. Public education efforts appear to be insignificant with regard to Lake protection efforts
(*somewhat confusing language; does this refer to current (actual) or potential influence?)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; majority favoring the view that public education efforts appear to have a significant influence on Lake protection efforts. Some confusion in meaning; may need clarifying.
--------------------------------------------------------
Public education efforts should be:
12) A3. High priority
(1) B3. Medium priority
(0) C3. Low priority for the city and county
CONCLUSION: Near unanimous belief that public education should be a high priority.
(This has been recommended to the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program as a priority for 2001)
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 3. MORATORIUM.
(2) A1. There should be a moratorium on virtually all watershed construction forever
(7) B1. There should be a moratorium until a Total Maximum Daily Load study is completed
(2) C1. There should be a moratorium on single family construction until ordinances are revised
(0) D1. There should be a moratorium on subdivisions only; lots of adequate size could be built
(6) E1. No moratorium is necessary, current protection efforts are underway and evolving
CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 4. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
(1) A1. The City Comprehensive Plan currently contains sufficient policy guidance for protection
(3) B1. The City/County/District Joint Goals and Policies are adequate guidance for protection
(9) C1. Stronger and/or revised policy guidance is necessary for adequate lake protection
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring stronger and/or revised policy guidance as necessary for adequate lake protection.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 5. NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. (The Silverbeach Neighborhood Plan addresses permitted land uses, i.e. zoning, and density/lot size requirements)
(9) A1. The Silverbeach Neighborhood Plan should be updated to aid lake protection efforts
(0) B1. The Silverbeach Neighborhood Plan is adequate or less important than other efforts
(3) C1. Current land use designations and densities are acceptable
(8) D1. Land use designations and densities should be revised
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring updating Neighborhood Plan or revising land use designations and densities.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 6. DENSITY/MINIMUM LOT SIZE.
(4) A1. The current density designations should be retained, ranging from 6000-20,000 S.F. /lot
(7) B1. All of Silverbeach should be downzoned to the city minimum of 1 lot/20,000sf.
(1) C1. Only areas where there would be a significant reduction in lots should be down-zoned
(1) +D1.? All of Silverbeach should be down-zoned to a minimum of 1 lot/13,333sf
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring some type of downzone.
--------------------------------------------------------
(5) A2. The minimum buildable lot size should conform to minimum density requirements
(5) B2. Lots should be consolidated by appropriate means to achieve min. lot size requirements
(3) C2. Lots that are substandard should not be allowed to consolidate, unless adjacent
(1) D2. All legal lots of record should be buildable, regardless of size or sub area density
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; near unanimously favoring definition of a minimum buildable lot size, possibly requiring consolidation.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 7. TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDRs).
(8) A1. Transfer of Development Rights (homes) out of the watershed should be permitted*
(9) B1. Transfer of Development Rights within the watershed should be considered, when it would reduce new street or utility construction and extension impacts*
(* Does not need to be an either/or choice; can have both, none or either one)
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on need for some type of TDR program.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 8. BUILDING SETBACKS & PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
(9) A1. Front yard setbacks should be optionally reduced, to allow less driveway/impervious area
(4) B1. Reduced front yard setbacks should be required; driveways may not exceed this length
(0) C1. Rear setbacks should be increased from 10’ to require larger yard areas
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on need for some front yard setback reduction.
--------------------------------------------------------
(3) A2. The current, two, side-by-side, required parking spaces per lot is adequate*
(7) B2. Tandem parking, one behind the other, should be permitted*
(0) C2. Only one parking space per lot should be required
(* A2 & B2 are not mutually exclusive, could also cover C2, at owner’s option)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 9. PERMITTED/CONDITIONAL USES.
(4) A1. Permitted uses should be as stated in the current Silverbeach Ordinance
(6) B1. Permitted uses could be further restricted beyond those allowed in the ordinance
(3) C1. Permitted uses could be expanded
(3) D1. Permitted uses should be limited to single family dwellings & related only
CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
(2) A2. Conditional uses should be as stated in the ordinance
(8) B2. Conditional uses could be further restricted
(3) C2. Conditional uses could be expanded*
(* especially consider remodels)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring further restrictions.
--------------------------------------------------------
(0) A3. Livestock should be permitted outright in single family areas
(4) B3. Livestock may be permitted, if parcel size proportionate to required animal BMP’s
(3) C3. Livestock may only be permitted as a conditional use
(6) D3. Livestock should not be permitted
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on need for some reduction in livestock permits.
--------------------------------------------------------
(7) A4. Accessory Dwelling Units should continue to be prohibited
(4) B4. Accessory Dwelling Units could be considered as a conditional use
(1) C4. Accessory Dwelling Units could be permitted in lieu of subdivision, w/restrict. covenant
(4) +D4.(?) ADU’s OK, if =/< 2000 SF
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring continued prohibition.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 10. SUBDIVISION CODE.
(9) A1. Cluster development, which allows smaller lots and larger open space, should be allowed provided there is no increase in density beyond conventional
(2) B1. Cluster should only be allowed as presently permitted in areas 1,4,5,11 & 17
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on need for cluster development.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 11. STREET STANDARDS.
(0) A1. Street right of way width should remain @ 60’ for through streets and 50’ for cul de sacs
11) B1. Street right of way width should be narrowed below current minimums when feasible
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on allowing possible narrowing street right of way in SB.
--------------------------------------------------------
(0) A2. Full standard through streets should remain @ 28’ wide and cul de sacs 24’ wide
12) B2. Full standard streets should be narrowed when feasible
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on allowing possible narrowing full standard street right of way in SB.
--------------------------------------------------------
(0) A3. Full standard streets should include sidewalks on both sides
(9) B3. A sidewalk on one side should usually be sufficient, except on arterial streets
(5) C3. Sidewalks are not really necessary on local-access-only streets
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on allowing sidewalk reductions on full standard streets in SB.
--------------------------------------------------------
(1) A4. When required, sidewalk standards should remain @ 5’ in width
12) B4. Sidewalks should be narrowed and/or setback when feasible
Add group 5? Allow more pervious surfaces for sidewalks
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on narrowing sidewalks and/or setback when feasible
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 12. OPERATING ORDINANCES, SEPA, CLEARING, GRADING, STORMWATER.
(6) A1. SEPA Environmental Impact review should be applied the same citywide
(6) B1. SEPA review should be required for development in the watershed, except single family
CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
(3) A2. Clearing should continue to be allowed on undeveloped land w/a permit & BMP’s
10) B2. The Clearing Ordinance should prohibit any land clearing w/out a valid building permit
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring the view that the Clearing Ordinance should prohibit any land clearing without a valid building permit. Minority felt clearing should continue with a permit, using BMPs.
--------------------------------------------------------
(0) A3. Fill sites should continue to be permitted on land w/out a building permit
13) B3. The Grading Ordinance should prohibit fills w/out a valid building permit
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on Grading Ordinance prohibiting fills w/out a valid building permit.
--------------------------------------------------------
(1) A4. Single family lots should be exempt from all but erosion control stormwater regulations
12) B4. Single lots should comply with strict stormwater regulations, like treatment & detention*
(* within reason; define how determined?)
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on having single lots comply with strict stormwater regulations, like treatment & detention.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 13. WETLAND & STREAM ORDINANCE.
(3) A1. Wetland and stream buffers should remain @ 25’-100’ and 10’-50’ respectively
(2) B1. Wetland and stream buffers should probably be increased somewhat
(8) C1. Wetland and Stream buffers should be based on best available science for the purpose
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring the view that wetland and stream buffers should probably be increased. Minority felt no change was needed.
--------------------------------------------------------
(5) A2. Docks should continue to be permitted with size/length based on similar adjacent docks
(7) B2. Docks size and length should be more restricted than current patterns reflect
(3) C2. Docks should not be permitted any more
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring more dock restrictions.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 14. SHORELINE MASTER PLAN.
(2) A1. Residential shoreline setbacks should remain at 25’-35’ from the water’s edge
11) B1. Residential shoreline setbacks should be increased where feasible*
(* ambiguous; how is feasibility determined? administrative flexibility, plus appeals)
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on having residential shoreline setbacks should be increased where feasible.
--------------------------------------------------------
(3) A3. Bulkheads should continue to be permitted at/land-ward of the ordinary high water mark
(6) B3. Bulkheads should be further restricted, based on need for property protection
(3) C3. Bulkheads should not be permitted*
(* more discussion?)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring more bulkhead restrictions.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 15. IMPERVIOUS LIMITS.
(9) A1. The current impervious limits of the greater of 2000 SF or 15% of parcel area are OK
(0) B1. Impervious limits should be increased w/out additional requirements
(5) C1. Impervious limits could be increased w/mitigation
(2) D1. Impervious limits should be reduced where feasible
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring retention of the current impervious limits of the greater of 2000 SF or 15% of parcel area.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 16. ADDITIONS & REMODELS. (The following applies only to new impervious additions or remodels to existing homes that already exceed impervious limits)
(2) A1. All proposed exterior footprint additions must comply with adopted impervious limits
(6) B1. Exterior additions may be considered if there is no net increase in impervious area
(5) C1. Exterior additions may be considered only if there is a net reduction in impervious area
(0) D1. Exterior additions may occur only if there is at least a 2- for 1+ impervious reduction
(1) +E1? Increased impervious area for remodels, with tighter baseline impervious %, applicable
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring exterior additions if there is no net increase, or a net reduction in impervious area.
--------------------------------------------------------
(9) A2. Reconstruction should be allowed for damage due to fire, regardless of impervious area
(3) B2. Reconstruction due to damage must comply with adopted impervious limits*
(* only if built up to existing footprint & applicable impervious area limit; insurance issue?)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring reconstruction be allowed for damage due to fire, regardless of impervious area.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 17. PERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITS.
(2) A1. There should be no limit on the use of non-vegetative pervious systems, i.e. pavers etc.
(5) B1. Non-vegetated pervious systems should be limited to a minor extent
(6) C1. Non-vegetated pervious systems should be limited similar to impervious cover*
(* unclear; what does “similar to” mean?)
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on having some limits on non-vegetated, pervious systems.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 18. TRANSFER OF IMPERVIOUS CREDITS.
(7) A1. Impervious credits should be able to be purchased or transferred from parcel to parcel*
(9) B1. Impervious credits should be able to be earned with BMP’s, mitigation or similar*
(1) C1. Impervious credits should not be purchased or earned, stay within adopted limits
(* note A1 & B1 are not mutually exclusive, shouldn’t both be allowed?)
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on having some mechanism to earn additional impervious credits.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 19. FLEXIBLE INCENTIVES.
(8) A1. Impervious area could be expanded by other means, such as offsite mitigation/restoration
(1) B1. Impervious area could be expanded if site design mitigates impacts demonstrably
(9) C1. Incentives that would result in greater public benefit should allow added impervious area
(2) D1. Forget flexibility, could be too difficult to monitor, be fair or administer
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on having flexible incentives to earn additional impervious credits, while maintaining lake protection goals.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 20. NATIVE VEGETATION & LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS.
(2) A1. Strict native vegetation requirements should be adopted to retain or establish it*
(7) B1. There should be some native vegetation or landscape requirement for single lots*
(5) C1. All vegetation management should be voluntary with education and assistance provided
(0) D1. No requirement is necessary, most lots are landscaped to some degree anyway
(* for preserving or retaining native vegetation, would any credits be offered?)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring some native vegetation or landscape requirement for single lots.
--------------------------------------------------------
(8) A2. Consider limiting lawn area
(4) B2. Lawns are not a significant factor or are too difficult to regulate
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring some lawn area limits on single lots.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 21. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT.
(5) A1. Use of most or all pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers should be outright prohibited
(2) B1. Prohibit pesticides and herbicides, but a little fish fertilizer or manure compost is ok
(6) C1. No regulation needed, would be hard to monitor, harder to enforce or insignificant*
(* Hard to monitor or enforce; Federal Govt. enforces use close to water supply, per labels)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 22. SEASONAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITS. (* refers to ground disturbance only)
(2) A1. Seasonal limits make sense and are effective, make them shorter than present
(7) B1. Seasonal limits from May 1st to September 30th, as currently enacted, are OK
(3) C1. Seasonal limits should minimize spring impact, from 6/1 to 9/30
(2) D1. Seasonal limits are too restrictive at present, should be expanded**
+E1? ** if more than 4 months are allowed, add October, not May
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring keeping 5-month limit, or reducing springtime impacts.
--------------------------------------------------------
(7) A2. The current earthwork exemption area of 500 sq.ft. is appropriate
(3) B2. 500 sq.ft. is too much
(2) C2. 500 sq.ft. is too little
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring keeping the current earthwork exemption area of 500 sq.ft.
--------------------------------------------------------
(4) A3. Reconstruction due to damage should be allowed off-season, regardless of area
(7) B3. Reconstruction due to damage off-season should be allowed with controls.
(2) C3. Reconstruction will have to wait and comply with everyone else
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring allowing off-season reconstruction due to damage with controls.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 23. CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES.
(7) A1. Construction practices with little or no probable impact should be permitted off-season
(6) B1. Even with BMP’s, construction should wait for regular season
CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
(2) A2. Contractors that complete construction BMP course/certification can work off-season
(9) B2. No one can work off-season above exemption area thresholds.
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring not allowing off-season work, above exemption area thresholds.
--------------------------------------------------------
12) A3. Certification should be required to work in season, period.
(0) B3. Certification should not be required during open months
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on requiring certification to do construction work, even in season.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 24. FEES/ASSESSMENTS.
(0) A1. Only watershed residents should pay for stormwater impact remediation in the watershed
(2) B1. All city residents should pay for stormwater impact remediation in the watershed
10) C1. All water users should pay for stormwater impact remediation in the watershed
(2) D1. All water users should pay for remediation, w/watershed residents paying more
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring all water users paying for stormwater impact remediation in the watershed.
--------------------------------------------------------
(3) A2. Stormwater fees should be related to impervious area
(8) B2. Stormwater fees should be a flat rate per residence
(2) C2. Stormwater fees should be reduced for low impervious area and/or BMP’s
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; majority favoring stormwater fees on a flat rate per residence basis.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 25. PUBLIC WATERSHED LAND ACQUISITION IN THE WATERSHED. (Includes land as fee simple, TDR’s, impervious credits and conservation easements)
10) A1. Public land acquisition should be an essential part of lake management
(3) B1. Public land acquisition is helpful, but not essential
(0) C1. Public land acquisition is not the best use of public dollars
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement that public land acquisition should be either an essential, or a helpful, part of lake management. A large majority felt this was essential.
--------------------------------------------------------
(3) A2. City money should be used for City only land purchases
(3) B2. City money should be used for City and UGA (Geneva, Brownsville) purchases
(7) C2. City money should be used anywhere that it will have significant benefit in watershed
(* what is meant by “city money”? – levied & collected solely by COB?)
(0) C1. Public land acquisition is not the best use of public dollars
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement that City money should be used for public land acquisition in some manner. Majority felt it should be used anywhere that it will have significant benefit in watershed.
--------------------------------------------------------
(7) A3. Our first purchase priority should be land
(2) B3. Our first priority should be TDR’s
(0) C3. Our first priority should be impervious area credits
(2) D3. Our first priority should be conservation easements*
(4) E3. Our first priority should be compensation to owners not allowed to build on lots of record**
(this whole grouping is confusing; it sets priorities w/o evaluating efficacy of alternatives)
(1) +F3.? Our first priority should be relocating G-P’s intake to Basin #1 (who pays?)
(1) +G3.? All of the above (decisions on priority to be determined by WAAB/City Council)
(* if main purpose is to retain native vegetation, undisturbed, this option may be best)
(** if lots are ‘down-zoned’, by requiring a higher minimum lot size, or TDR/TIC program is adopted, this becomes top priority)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion on first purchase priority. This seems dependent upon the acquisition mechanisms adopted, the recommendations determined by a Watershed Acquisition Advisory Board, and the specific purchases approved by City Council.
--------------------------------------------------------
(0) A4. Funding for acquisition should come from a new land acquisition fee on water bills
(1) B4. Stormwater utility fee, normally used for improvements, maintenance and operations
(0) C4. From Greenways money, used for parks, open space, equipment
(0) D4. From grants (state & federal) & mitigation sources (private)
12) E4. All of the above
(0) F4. None of the above
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on using funding from all available sources.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 26. ENFORCEMENT.
(3) A1. Enforcement of the Silverbeach ordinance should be strict, literal and uniform
(1) B1. Enforcement should be phased in more gently, focussing on intent, adapting to fit
(9) C1. Enforcement should be firm, focussing on intent, and yield effective results
(* enforcement should be strongly tied to education!)
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on enforcement should be firm, focussing on intent, and yield effective results – or stricter.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 27. BENCHMARK/EFFECTIVENESS OF ACTIONS
10) A1. Benchmarks should be established to evaluate effectiveness of new ordinance provisions
(3) B1. Benchmarks, such as existing water quality monitoring and standards are sufficient
(0) C1. Benchmarks are not necessary; the proposed actions are likely to address quality concerns
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring establishing Benchmarks to evaluate effectiveness of the new ordinance provisions.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 28. ONGOING ADVISORY/STAKEHOLDER GROUP.
12) A1. A stakeholders group should remain empowered to advise Council on these issues
(0) B1. There are already too many people giving advice, nobody listens anyway!
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement that a stakeholders group should remain empowered to advise Council on these issues. Several members of the CTF expressed interest in remaining involved in some capacity to be determined.
--------------------------------------------------------
• SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS: Total Number by Voting category//Per Cent %//CUMULATIVE Per Cent %
UNANIMOUS [NO VOTES AGAINST A POSITION] 12//22.64//22.64
NEAR-UNANIMOUS [1 OR 2 VOTES AGAINST A POSITION] 11//20.76//43.4
Split opinion; large majority favoring [9 – 10 VOTES FOR A POSITION] 6//11.32//54.72
Split opinion; majority favoring [7 – 8 VOTES FOR A POSITION] 19//35.85//90.57
Split opinion [NO CLEAR MAJORITY POSITION] 5//9.43//100.0
Total Voted Categories or Sub-categories: 53
Monday, August 6, 2007
Either Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way!
Lee Iacocca, former Chairman of Chrysler Corporation, became famous for his inspirational, aggressive and goal oriented management style. In fact, that was why he was chosen to turn-around that troubled auto maker, which was in such dire straits. The title of this piece was the punch line in one of his ads, which also seems to have applicability here in Whatcom County.
That is the subject of this piece.
Lois Garlick -my friend- a spry and environmentally engaged senior citizen -an octogenarian at that- was the only person who actually stepped up to oppose the entrenched incumbent -Pete Kremen- as County Executive.
Others did consider it, but for various reasons did not decide to run, which is a shame.
Maybe they thought Pete was too difficult an opponent, maybe they weren't up to a gruelling campaign, maybe they had to continue supporting themselves and their families with more certainty at their jobs, maybe they felt unqualified, maybe they did not have sufficient name recognition, maybe they didn't have enough political backing and financial support, maybe they just didn't want to, maybe other reasons, I don't know, but that's not important now.
The fact is, most people probably don't know Lois, and many who do, don't think she has a chance to unseat Pete, and therefore aren't doing much to even help her get her message out. Maybe she is a dark horse, so what? She's running because Pete needs to be held accountable, and respond to questions about things which he has had the responsibility and authority to do all during his 12 years as County Executive.
Don't you believe Pete needs to be held accountable for a few things he hasn't done, or even tried to do? I do. That's why I've decided to not only vote for Lois Garlick, but to help campaign for her. Because, when you think about it, Pete Kremen doesn't respond to anything but political pressure, and without it he's just on cruise control for another 4 years. That's not OK with me, and I think many others feel the same way.
I recently received a reminder from the Whatcom Democrats -of whom I am a member- to support and vote for the candidates they endorsed. Well, I'm not necessarily going to do that, for more than one reason. One is that Pete Kremen got an endorsement, but kindly Lois Garlick did not!
What is wrong with that picture? Other elective offices even got multiple endorsements -and of course no one can support them all- but not the office of County Executive? Probably some good, bureaucratic reason for that little oversight, but the real point of this is to call attention to the excellent General Platform the Democrats adopted to support their endorsements.
Here it is:
"We support candidates who will ensure that our communities are great places to live, work, learn and play and:
Plan for and Manage Whatcom County's Growth Effectively
• Preserve our agricultural lands
• Retain and enhance neighborhood character
• Manage traffic and provide transportation alternatives
Protect our Environment
• Protect Water Quality in all Watersheds
• Clean up hazardous waste sites
• Restore and protect wildlife habitat
Manage Our Local Governments Responsibly
• Balance and Manage our Tax Dollars with Integrity
• Provide opportunities for citizen input"
That Platform sounds pretty good to me! It also fits pretty closely what Lois Garlick's goals are, as printed on her flyer.
What doesn't fit is that these good things were supposed to be the values that Pete Kremen stands for and will honestly try to implement to the best of his ability. And not Lois Garlick? Give me a break! That's just backwards, but as they say 'politics makes strange bedfellows'.
Then, the thought occurred to me that this admirable Platform could form the basis for a real life comparison between what Pete Kremen HAS done during the last 12 years, and what Lois Garlick promises to do in the next 4 years. How's that for serendipity?
So,following the Demo's Platform, here's a few questions for Pete to answer:
I. Plan for and manage Whatcom County's Growth Effectively
Please explain what you have done to make this happen? Is your plan working?
What happened to the overworked Planning Staff that quit almost en masse?
What about the land supply analysis needed to help the County adequately plan without sprawl? What is the result you would support?
What about the County's commitment to help the City meet its goal of accommodating over 50% of the County's 20-year projected growth?
Why was the County cited by the Growth Management Board for non-compliance?
Have those problems been corrected?
I. a. Preserve our agricultural lands
Why isn't there an adopted Purchase of Development Rights [PDR] program?
How many AG acres have been preserved without it? How many are needed?
What is the County's target PDR funding level and its source?
Why are there enough vested 5-acres lots to take ALL the growth for 20 years?
Why is the County still advocating and allowing conversion of Forestry lands to development?
When will the County make a determination of what would constitute sufficient AG lands to make AG a sustainable business in Whatcom County?
I. b. Retain and enhance neighborhood character
Why have Neighborhoods in the UGA been allowed to develop without full density, and City levels of service for Parks and connecting arterials?
Why has the County resisted the City's policy of requiring annexation before extending water and sewer utilities?
Why aren't the use of City standards and zoning required in the UGA? Wouldn't this help simplify the permitting process and make infill more certain?
Does anyone in the County Planning Dept have an urban planning background?
Why hasn't the County supported the new Local Infrastructure Financing Tool [LIFT] legislation passed especially to help redevelop Bellingham's Waterfront?
Does the County expect to contribute any Economic Development Incentive [EDI] funds to the Waterdfront Redevelopment? At what level? When will this happen?
Do you understand that Waterfront Redevelopment will not only clean up a badly contaminated area, but also aid Economic Development of our entire County, provide citizens with greater access to the Bay, and substantially assist the City in meeting it's goal of accommodating infill of 3000 to 6000 people?
Do you understand that LIFT assistance would only occur as progress is actually made toward these goals?
Do you understand -and can you explain- why existing Bellingham neighborhoods will be increasingly impacted, and housing affordability will suffer, if insufficient additional UGA land supply is made available by the County?
Do you appreciate how much work must be done to bring the City's development codes up to standard? Have you discussed this problem with the Mayor and/or City Planning Director?
I. c. Manage traffic and provide transportation alternatives
Why doesn't the County require traffic impact fees?
Why does County continue building expensive, unnecessary roads to support sprawl? What are the criteria for building or improving County roads?
Why is the important Public Works Director position still vacant? Is there also a problem in attracting and retaining Public Works professionals?
Does the County coordinate arterial planning and prioritizing with the City?
Are the siting of park and ride locations part of County transportation planning?
2. Protect our Environment
Please explain what you have done about this? What happened to the touted Lake Whatcom phosphorus reduction program? Who's assigned to this program? At what level of effort?
What happened to the Planning and Public Works Staff assigned to the Lake Whatcom Management Program for this purpose? Will Bruce Roll and Sue Blake and other experienced staff members be replaced? Can their experience be replaced?
2. a. Protect Water Quality in all Watersheds
What happened to the WRIA 1 countywide water planning effort that spent $4.3 in public funds million before it was halted?
When will this effort be re-started?
Why did the County oppose the City's efforts to acquire and preserve the Lake Whatcom Reservoir watershed?
Why hasn't the County established and funded a stormwater management system of its own to help preserve Lake Whatcom?
Why does the County continue allowing development in the Lake Whatcom watershed outside the UGA, without sufficient access to water and sewer?
While you live in the Lake Whatcom watershed, and also own developable lots there, what conflict of interest may exist between the goal of protecting the lake and your personal affairs?
Why hasn't the County enforced its own regulations, including seasonal restrictions on clearing & grading?
2. b. Clean up hazardous waste sites
What's happening about the former Nooksack landfill?
Why didn't the County support LIFT to assist the City and Port in their efforts to clean up the G-P, other contaminated industrial sites and former landsfills on the Waterfront, to facilitate its redevelopment?
Doesn't the County's Comprehensive Plan's Economic Development Chapter emphasize supporting exactly this type of redevelopment?
Please explain why this policy was NOT followed on LIFT?
2. c. Restore and protect wildlife habitat
Please explain what have you and the County have done about this?
Was protecting salmon habitat supposed to be a big part of the WRIA 1 effort? Since WRIA 1 has been stalled, has this goal been achieved?
3. Manage Our Local Governments Responsibly
Explain how you have been able to achieve a balance between frugality with public funds and providing the services that citizens need and want?
Why has the County accumulated unanticipated funds well beyond established reserve levels?
What is being done about the perpetual shortage of Sheriff's deputies?
What is being done about the need for a larger and more modern County Jail?
Why has the County resisted expanding Emergency Management Services to accommodate the post 9/11 needs of Cities and citizens?
Why is County staff morale and retention been valued so lowly that it has become an ongoing problem?
Why has the County Council found it necessary to hire its own staff, and attempt to take control of the County's planning function?
What does the County actually mean by 'collaboration' with other jurisdictions? How do you, and the County, decide when and how to 'collaborate'?
Why does so much back-biting and blaming of others continue to happen? Is this practice considered useful as a substitute for actually addressing and fixing problems?
Does your trying to avoid a DUI arrest help foster public trust?
Why did it take 3 ballot measures to get the County to fully support EMS?
3. a. Balance and Manage our Tax Dollars with Integrity
Why has the County accumulated such a large surplus of unspent funds?
Is this reserves excess the reason County property taxes have not increased for 12 years?
If these 'excess' funds are not required or timely used, should some portion of these funds be returned to taxpayers?
Aren't there demonstrated needs for these funds, such as hiring critical staff?
Why does the County consistently prefer more regressive sales taxes over property taxes?
Why hasn't the County adopted a B&O tax, so that businesses have more incentive to locate in urban areas instead of sprawling?
Is the County over-collecting revenues from allowing sprawl in urban growth areas [UGAs] without providing urban levels of service?
Does this practice effectively under-utilize urban growth areas, thereby eventually adding to sprawl?
Is the County Flood Tax fair to smaller property owners?
Is the Flood Tax being shared equitably with cities?
What funding source has been identified for WRIA 1? Is it adequate?
3. b. Provide opportunities for citizen input
When citizen input is given, does the County really listen?
Why not televise County Council Committee Sessions, so citizens can see and hear what goes on, at their own convenience?
Does official input from other jurisdictions, like the City [40% of County population], count as citizen input?
Are County Planning Commission recommendations considered citizen advice?
Are City Planning Commission recommendations considered citizen advice?
Are City Council recommendations considered citizen advice?
-------------
The Whatcom Democrats are to be commended for the excellent Platform they developed and adopted. They are not responsible for who decides to run for office, but must make judgements on which candidates they will support. Perhaps, Pete Kremen is the candidate most capable of diligently pursuing and achieving the goals of ther platform. But, I do have serious reservations about him actually doing it, because his history has not supported that expectation. Also, endorsing a candidate is not the same as voting for them, so maybe there is more of a chance for Lois Garlick than anyone thinks?
I believe that all of the goals from the Demo's Platform, are critically important. The really good questions they suggest can also help us find clues as to what has been missing in Whatcom County government during Pete Kremen's 12-year tenure.
The County Executive is the one person we can hold MOST accountable for any deficiencies, as well as any lack of initiative to fix them. Excessive non-action on real issues is considered a major failure of both leadership, and management, that I and many others find it hard to accept, as citizens of Whatcom County!
I believe that Lois Garlick can do a better job than Pete Kremen has done as County Executive. Not only better, but much better! At a minimum, she will not be seeking re-election as her first priority, and that's for sure. And, I know she has the gumption, integrity and courage to hire the talent she will need to help her do this important job right!
Let's send a message to Pete Kremen that we expect much more from our County Executive than he has delivered. And, if Pete is re-elected, we will expect him to seriously address each of the Demo's Platform Issues.
What do we have to lose by voting for Lois Garlick? Well, we might just lose something we ought to lose - continued sub-standard leadership for Whatcom County. What is really hard to understand is that Pete is likely more capable than he has demonstrated, and he has a pretty good Council to work with that would support him in pursuing the Demo's Platform goals! So, why doesn't Pete get on with the program and get something more positive done than maintaining essentially a do-nothing 'status quo' posture that only makes worse his legacy, and the problems our children will face as their legacy?
As Lee Iacocca said, either lead, follow, or get out of the way!
Sorry Pete, I'm voting for Lois Garlick!
That is the subject of this piece.
Lois Garlick -my friend- a spry and environmentally engaged senior citizen -an octogenarian at that- was the only person who actually stepped up to oppose the entrenched incumbent -Pete Kremen- as County Executive.
Others did consider it, but for various reasons did not decide to run, which is a shame.
Maybe they thought Pete was too difficult an opponent, maybe they weren't up to a gruelling campaign, maybe they had to continue supporting themselves and their families with more certainty at their jobs, maybe they felt unqualified, maybe they did not have sufficient name recognition, maybe they didn't have enough political backing and financial support, maybe they just didn't want to, maybe other reasons, I don't know, but that's not important now.
The fact is, most people probably don't know Lois, and many who do, don't think she has a chance to unseat Pete, and therefore aren't doing much to even help her get her message out. Maybe she is a dark horse, so what? She's running because Pete needs to be held accountable, and respond to questions about things which he has had the responsibility and authority to do all during his 12 years as County Executive.
Don't you believe Pete needs to be held accountable for a few things he hasn't done, or even tried to do? I do. That's why I've decided to not only vote for Lois Garlick, but to help campaign for her. Because, when you think about it, Pete Kremen doesn't respond to anything but political pressure, and without it he's just on cruise control for another 4 years. That's not OK with me, and I think many others feel the same way.
I recently received a reminder from the Whatcom Democrats -of whom I am a member- to support and vote for the candidates they endorsed. Well, I'm not necessarily going to do that, for more than one reason. One is that Pete Kremen got an endorsement, but kindly Lois Garlick did not!
What is wrong with that picture? Other elective offices even got multiple endorsements -and of course no one can support them all- but not the office of County Executive? Probably some good, bureaucratic reason for that little oversight, but the real point of this is to call attention to the excellent General Platform the Democrats adopted to support their endorsements.
Here it is:
"We support candidates who will ensure that our communities are great places to live, work, learn and play and:
Plan for and Manage Whatcom County's Growth Effectively
• Preserve our agricultural lands
• Retain and enhance neighborhood character
• Manage traffic and provide transportation alternatives
Protect our Environment
• Protect Water Quality in all Watersheds
• Clean up hazardous waste sites
• Restore and protect wildlife habitat
Manage Our Local Governments Responsibly
• Balance and Manage our Tax Dollars with Integrity
• Provide opportunities for citizen input"
That Platform sounds pretty good to me! It also fits pretty closely what Lois Garlick's goals are, as printed on her flyer.
What doesn't fit is that these good things were supposed to be the values that Pete Kremen stands for and will honestly try to implement to the best of his ability. And not Lois Garlick? Give me a break! That's just backwards, but as they say 'politics makes strange bedfellows'.
Then, the thought occurred to me that this admirable Platform could form the basis for a real life comparison between what Pete Kremen HAS done during the last 12 years, and what Lois Garlick promises to do in the next 4 years. How's that for serendipity?
So,following the Demo's Platform, here's a few questions for Pete to answer:
I. Plan for and manage Whatcom County's Growth Effectively
Please explain what you have done to make this happen? Is your plan working?
What happened to the overworked Planning Staff that quit almost en masse?
What about the land supply analysis needed to help the County adequately plan without sprawl? What is the result you would support?
What about the County's commitment to help the City meet its goal of accommodating over 50% of the County's 20-year projected growth?
Why was the County cited by the Growth Management Board for non-compliance?
Have those problems been corrected?
I. a. Preserve our agricultural lands
Why isn't there an adopted Purchase of Development Rights [PDR] program?
How many AG acres have been preserved without it? How many are needed?
What is the County's target PDR funding level and its source?
Why are there enough vested 5-acres lots to take ALL the growth for 20 years?
Why is the County still advocating and allowing conversion of Forestry lands to development?
When will the County make a determination of what would constitute sufficient AG lands to make AG a sustainable business in Whatcom County?
I. b. Retain and enhance neighborhood character
Why have Neighborhoods in the UGA been allowed to develop without full density, and City levels of service for Parks and connecting arterials?
Why has the County resisted the City's policy of requiring annexation before extending water and sewer utilities?
Why aren't the use of City standards and zoning required in the UGA? Wouldn't this help simplify the permitting process and make infill more certain?
Does anyone in the County Planning Dept have an urban planning background?
Why hasn't the County supported the new Local Infrastructure Financing Tool [LIFT] legislation passed especially to help redevelop Bellingham's Waterfront?
Does the County expect to contribute any Economic Development Incentive [EDI] funds to the Waterdfront Redevelopment? At what level? When will this happen?
Do you understand that Waterfront Redevelopment will not only clean up a badly contaminated area, but also aid Economic Development of our entire County, provide citizens with greater access to the Bay, and substantially assist the City in meeting it's goal of accommodating infill of 3000 to 6000 people?
Do you understand that LIFT assistance would only occur as progress is actually made toward these goals?
Do you understand -and can you explain- why existing Bellingham neighborhoods will be increasingly impacted, and housing affordability will suffer, if insufficient additional UGA land supply is made available by the County?
Do you appreciate how much work must be done to bring the City's development codes up to standard? Have you discussed this problem with the Mayor and/or City Planning Director?
I. c. Manage traffic and provide transportation alternatives
Why doesn't the County require traffic impact fees?
Why does County continue building expensive, unnecessary roads to support sprawl? What are the criteria for building or improving County roads?
Why is the important Public Works Director position still vacant? Is there also a problem in attracting and retaining Public Works professionals?
Does the County coordinate arterial planning and prioritizing with the City?
Are the siting of park and ride locations part of County transportation planning?
2. Protect our Environment
Please explain what you have done about this? What happened to the touted Lake Whatcom phosphorus reduction program? Who's assigned to this program? At what level of effort?
What happened to the Planning and Public Works Staff assigned to the Lake Whatcom Management Program for this purpose? Will Bruce Roll and Sue Blake and other experienced staff members be replaced? Can their experience be replaced?
2. a. Protect Water Quality in all Watersheds
What happened to the WRIA 1 countywide water planning effort that spent $4.3 in public funds million before it was halted?
When will this effort be re-started?
Why did the County oppose the City's efforts to acquire and preserve the Lake Whatcom Reservoir watershed?
Why hasn't the County established and funded a stormwater management system of its own to help preserve Lake Whatcom?
Why does the County continue allowing development in the Lake Whatcom watershed outside the UGA, without sufficient access to water and sewer?
While you live in the Lake Whatcom watershed, and also own developable lots there, what conflict of interest may exist between the goal of protecting the lake and your personal affairs?
Why hasn't the County enforced its own regulations, including seasonal restrictions on clearing & grading?
2. b. Clean up hazardous waste sites
What's happening about the former Nooksack landfill?
Why didn't the County support LIFT to assist the City and Port in their efforts to clean up the G-P, other contaminated industrial sites and former landsfills on the Waterfront, to facilitate its redevelopment?
Doesn't the County's Comprehensive Plan's Economic Development Chapter emphasize supporting exactly this type of redevelopment?
Please explain why this policy was NOT followed on LIFT?
2. c. Restore and protect wildlife habitat
Please explain what have you and the County have done about this?
Was protecting salmon habitat supposed to be a big part of the WRIA 1 effort? Since WRIA 1 has been stalled, has this goal been achieved?
3. Manage Our Local Governments Responsibly
Explain how you have been able to achieve a balance between frugality with public funds and providing the services that citizens need and want?
Why has the County accumulated unanticipated funds well beyond established reserve levels?
What is being done about the perpetual shortage of Sheriff's deputies?
What is being done about the need for a larger and more modern County Jail?
Why has the County resisted expanding Emergency Management Services to accommodate the post 9/11 needs of Cities and citizens?
Why is County staff morale and retention been valued so lowly that it has become an ongoing problem?
Why has the County Council found it necessary to hire its own staff, and attempt to take control of the County's planning function?
What does the County actually mean by 'collaboration' with other jurisdictions? How do you, and the County, decide when and how to 'collaborate'?
Why does so much back-biting and blaming of others continue to happen? Is this practice considered useful as a substitute for actually addressing and fixing problems?
Does your trying to avoid a DUI arrest help foster public trust?
Why did it take 3 ballot measures to get the County to fully support EMS?
3. a. Balance and Manage our Tax Dollars with Integrity
Why has the County accumulated such a large surplus of unspent funds?
Is this reserves excess the reason County property taxes have not increased for 12 years?
If these 'excess' funds are not required or timely used, should some portion of these funds be returned to taxpayers?
Aren't there demonstrated needs for these funds, such as hiring critical staff?
Why does the County consistently prefer more regressive sales taxes over property taxes?
Why hasn't the County adopted a B&O tax, so that businesses have more incentive to locate in urban areas instead of sprawling?
Is the County over-collecting revenues from allowing sprawl in urban growth areas [UGAs] without providing urban levels of service?
Does this practice effectively under-utilize urban growth areas, thereby eventually adding to sprawl?
Is the County Flood Tax fair to smaller property owners?
Is the Flood Tax being shared equitably with cities?
What funding source has been identified for WRIA 1? Is it adequate?
3. b. Provide opportunities for citizen input
When citizen input is given, does the County really listen?
Why not televise County Council Committee Sessions, so citizens can see and hear what goes on, at their own convenience?
Does official input from other jurisdictions, like the City [40% of County population], count as citizen input?
Are County Planning Commission recommendations considered citizen advice?
Are City Planning Commission recommendations considered citizen advice?
Are City Council recommendations considered citizen advice?
-------------
The Whatcom Democrats are to be commended for the excellent Platform they developed and adopted. They are not responsible for who decides to run for office, but must make judgements on which candidates they will support. Perhaps, Pete Kremen is the candidate most capable of diligently pursuing and achieving the goals of ther platform. But, I do have serious reservations about him actually doing it, because his history has not supported that expectation. Also, endorsing a candidate is not the same as voting for them, so maybe there is more of a chance for Lois Garlick than anyone thinks?
I believe that all of the goals from the Demo's Platform, are critically important. The really good questions they suggest can also help us find clues as to what has been missing in Whatcom County government during Pete Kremen's 12-year tenure.
The County Executive is the one person we can hold MOST accountable for any deficiencies, as well as any lack of initiative to fix them. Excessive non-action on real issues is considered a major failure of both leadership, and management, that I and many others find it hard to accept, as citizens of Whatcom County!
I believe that Lois Garlick can do a better job than Pete Kremen has done as County Executive. Not only better, but much better! At a minimum, she will not be seeking re-election as her first priority, and that's for sure. And, I know she has the gumption, integrity and courage to hire the talent she will need to help her do this important job right!
Let's send a message to Pete Kremen that we expect much more from our County Executive than he has delivered. And, if Pete is re-elected, we will expect him to seriously address each of the Demo's Platform Issues.
What do we have to lose by voting for Lois Garlick? Well, we might just lose something we ought to lose - continued sub-standard leadership for Whatcom County. What is really hard to understand is that Pete is likely more capable than he has demonstrated, and he has a pretty good Council to work with that would support him in pursuing the Demo's Platform goals! So, why doesn't Pete get on with the program and get something more positive done than maintaining essentially a do-nothing 'status quo' posture that only makes worse his legacy, and the problems our children will face as their legacy?
As Lee Iacocca said, either lead, follow, or get out of the way!
Sorry Pete, I'm voting for Lois Garlick!
Parking Is Not Free
This piece was published in Whatcom Watch earlier this year:
Parking is not free. The land under vehicles — whether moving or at rest — is valuable and owned by someone, either a government entity or a private interest. Permission to park on public property is a privilege, not a right. Policy regarding parking is adopted by the elected body and administered by public servants according to established laws, regulations and practices.
Changes are always possible, but subject to deliberation and consideration of all reasonable impacts. Changes can be upsetting to established practice, but are sometimes necessary. Growth is a change with cumulative effects that happen over time. Compact growth exacerbates noticeable problems greatly and quickly, and must be dealt with carefully with a long-term view of fairness, flexibility and reality.
Parking is not likely to become either cheaper or easier to provide, rather, the opposite will happen. Old habits, customs and practices will need to change over time to adapt to the new realities that are evolving.
A comprehensive plan for parking citywide in Bellingham is needed, but will not be easy to develop except in its guiding principles to address change over time. A parking plan for specific, concentrated public areas should be much simpler to develop, implement and use.
Civic Center and Cultural District Parking
Such an area is the civic center and its adjacent cultural district in downtown Bellingham. Parking problems in this area have grown to the point that action is required without undue further delay. To the extent these specific problems can be reasonably and sustainably addressed would inform and encourage similar action elsewhere.
As a microcosm of parking related problems, the civic center and cultural district deserves our immediate attention, energy and action. Any resolution to the parking scarcity in this heavily and constantly used area will certainly help the institutions, facilities, businesses, patrons and others to use this area more efficiently and effectively. Done correctly, it could also encourage much greater use of public transit, bicycles and pedestrian walkways, as well as demonstrate the multiple advantages of planning for future urban centers.
Parking is what it is — currently an accommodation to conventional transportation, primarily private motorized vehicles. The space taken up by parking is now too valuable for that use alone. Fees, collected from meters, do not begin to cover the costs of land strictly dedicated to parking, and if they do, they won’t for long.
There is no denial of the need for adequate and conveniently located parking. That is certainly necessary; however, what citizens expected to be freely provided in the past is now becoming more costly and unrealistic each year.
Citizens have voted to voluntarily tax themselves for more green space, but not for more parking. That means that parking needs require a way to pay for themselves, either as privately provided incentives to shop or as parking fees to pay for structured facilities near where people need and want to go. A fiscally responsible alternate is to simply not provide free parking for private vehicles.
Periodically, there have been parking studies conducted, but none have been comprehensive, widely supported or their recommendations accepted and achieved. Some have been admittedly been limited in scope; others have simply begged creditability. Even the actions taken more recently by the City Council are still being questioned as necessary, fair or even in the right direction, despite their clearly expressed rationale.
What Needs to Be Done?
So, what is to be done? Nearly everyone agrees something needs to be done, whether it is to return to the prior system, providing cheaper or free parking downtown, or building costly structures to attract cars to support business, entertainment or visitors.
Most citizens agree that much better parking solutions should be provided in the civic center and cultural district, they just don’t want to pay for it themselves — preferring to externalize the problem and its solution to “others.” Perhaps the “others” should be the users? But these users will also likely need help to get traction toward visible progress.
What follows is an idea regarding the new library parking space that may serve to satisfy several needs, but certainly not all.
Both city and county governments are concentrated in one fairly compact area, and both have expanded significantly during the last several years, along with the general population and its need for services.
Necessary capital improvements has also occurred recently to make the publicly-owned Mt. Baker Theater and Whatcom Museum more viable in attracting the type of regional economic development envisioned and enabled by the Public Facilities District. A new Children’s Museum is being constructed and significant improvements to the streetscapes in the immediate area are underway.
All of these activities are expected to have the effect of making this area much more of a truly people place, much more of the time. The net result will be more people visiting the area and more businesses encouraged to invest in it. This is a scenario designed to create a greater need for both alternate transportation and parking, and it is happening!
Now, the time for investment in another well-used public facility in this same area is drawing near — the Bellingham Public Library. Planning for the next 50 years means that a larger and more modern building to provide the library and public meeting facilities is needed soon.
Fortunately, the block on which the current library stands is already owned by the city and can provide sufficient space for the new facility, as well as structured, underground parking for a significant number of vehicles that typically visit the civic center.
Use All Available Underground Space for Parking
Funding for any new library must come from a publicly-voted bond measure, which would typically include only a limited amount of parking directly associated with library operations. But, it would make sense to consider using all the available underground space to produce significantly more parking than the library requires or should be expected to finance.
It would also make fiscal sense to construct any parking beyond that needed by the library at the time the new library is built. Preliminary estimates are that up to about 250 parking spaces could be provided under the existing library land, providing an essential part of its foundation.
Most of this parking could be used for city and county civic use during business hours and cultural events parking afterwards as well. This new parking would be easily accessible and off the streets, but not free. It would need to charge the various users, as the preferred way of repaying any councilmanic bond passed to cover the costs of only that parking over and above the library’s needs.
Absent a comprehensive parking plan for the entire downtown, perhaps our local governments will consider the lack of adequate parking in the civic center and cultural district area a serious enough problem to address soon. It is the job of these governments to do so, and in a timely fashion.
Any parking plan developed for this area needs to be reasonable and fiscally sensible, with adequate sensitivity to soliciting, hearing and carefully evaluating the input of citizens. The library’s needs are real, as are the parking problems in the immediate area.
Perhaps, the consideration of both issues simultaneously can result in highly synergistic benefit to the city and county governments, the library, area businesses and institutions, and most all, the citizens. That seems a worthy goal!
Parking is not free. The land under vehicles — whether moving or at rest — is valuable and owned by someone, either a government entity or a private interest. Permission to park on public property is a privilege, not a right. Policy regarding parking is adopted by the elected body and administered by public servants according to established laws, regulations and practices.
Changes are always possible, but subject to deliberation and consideration of all reasonable impacts. Changes can be upsetting to established practice, but are sometimes necessary. Growth is a change with cumulative effects that happen over time. Compact growth exacerbates noticeable problems greatly and quickly, and must be dealt with carefully with a long-term view of fairness, flexibility and reality.
Parking is not likely to become either cheaper or easier to provide, rather, the opposite will happen. Old habits, customs and practices will need to change over time to adapt to the new realities that are evolving.
A comprehensive plan for parking citywide in Bellingham is needed, but will not be easy to develop except in its guiding principles to address change over time. A parking plan for specific, concentrated public areas should be much simpler to develop, implement and use.
Civic Center and Cultural District Parking
Such an area is the civic center and its adjacent cultural district in downtown Bellingham. Parking problems in this area have grown to the point that action is required without undue further delay. To the extent these specific problems can be reasonably and sustainably addressed would inform and encourage similar action elsewhere.
As a microcosm of parking related problems, the civic center and cultural district deserves our immediate attention, energy and action. Any resolution to the parking scarcity in this heavily and constantly used area will certainly help the institutions, facilities, businesses, patrons and others to use this area more efficiently and effectively. Done correctly, it could also encourage much greater use of public transit, bicycles and pedestrian walkways, as well as demonstrate the multiple advantages of planning for future urban centers.
Parking is what it is — currently an accommodation to conventional transportation, primarily private motorized vehicles. The space taken up by parking is now too valuable for that use alone. Fees, collected from meters, do not begin to cover the costs of land strictly dedicated to parking, and if they do, they won’t for long.
There is no denial of the need for adequate and conveniently located parking. That is certainly necessary; however, what citizens expected to be freely provided in the past is now becoming more costly and unrealistic each year.
Citizens have voted to voluntarily tax themselves for more green space, but not for more parking. That means that parking needs require a way to pay for themselves, either as privately provided incentives to shop or as parking fees to pay for structured facilities near where people need and want to go. A fiscally responsible alternate is to simply not provide free parking for private vehicles.
Periodically, there have been parking studies conducted, but none have been comprehensive, widely supported or their recommendations accepted and achieved. Some have been admittedly been limited in scope; others have simply begged creditability. Even the actions taken more recently by the City Council are still being questioned as necessary, fair or even in the right direction, despite their clearly expressed rationale.
What Needs to Be Done?
So, what is to be done? Nearly everyone agrees something needs to be done, whether it is to return to the prior system, providing cheaper or free parking downtown, or building costly structures to attract cars to support business, entertainment or visitors.
Most citizens agree that much better parking solutions should be provided in the civic center and cultural district, they just don’t want to pay for it themselves — preferring to externalize the problem and its solution to “others.” Perhaps the “others” should be the users? But these users will also likely need help to get traction toward visible progress.
What follows is an idea regarding the new library parking space that may serve to satisfy several needs, but certainly not all.
Both city and county governments are concentrated in one fairly compact area, and both have expanded significantly during the last several years, along with the general population and its need for services.
Necessary capital improvements has also occurred recently to make the publicly-owned Mt. Baker Theater and Whatcom Museum more viable in attracting the type of regional economic development envisioned and enabled by the Public Facilities District. A new Children’s Museum is being constructed and significant improvements to the streetscapes in the immediate area are underway.
All of these activities are expected to have the effect of making this area much more of a truly people place, much more of the time. The net result will be more people visiting the area and more businesses encouraged to invest in it. This is a scenario designed to create a greater need for both alternate transportation and parking, and it is happening!
Now, the time for investment in another well-used public facility in this same area is drawing near — the Bellingham Public Library. Planning for the next 50 years means that a larger and more modern building to provide the library and public meeting facilities is needed soon.
Fortunately, the block on which the current library stands is already owned by the city and can provide sufficient space for the new facility, as well as structured, underground parking for a significant number of vehicles that typically visit the civic center.
Use All Available Underground Space for Parking
Funding for any new library must come from a publicly-voted bond measure, which would typically include only a limited amount of parking directly associated with library operations. But, it would make sense to consider using all the available underground space to produce significantly more parking than the library requires or should be expected to finance.
It would also make fiscal sense to construct any parking beyond that needed by the library at the time the new library is built. Preliminary estimates are that up to about 250 parking spaces could be provided under the existing library land, providing an essential part of its foundation.
Most of this parking could be used for city and county civic use during business hours and cultural events parking afterwards as well. This new parking would be easily accessible and off the streets, but not free. It would need to charge the various users, as the preferred way of repaying any councilmanic bond passed to cover the costs of only that parking over and above the library’s needs.
Absent a comprehensive parking plan for the entire downtown, perhaps our local governments will consider the lack of adequate parking in the civic center and cultural district area a serious enough problem to address soon. It is the job of these governments to do so, and in a timely fashion.
Any parking plan developed for this area needs to be reasonable and fiscally sensible, with adequate sensitivity to soliciting, hearing and carefully evaluating the input of citizens. The library’s needs are real, as are the parking problems in the immediate area.
Perhaps, the consideration of both issues simultaneously can result in highly synergistic benefit to the city and county governments, the library, area businesses and institutions, and most all, the citizens. That seems a worthy goal!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
